Preamble

The House met at a. Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London and North Eastern Railway Bill.

Southern Railway Bill. Bills committed.

St. Helens Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. BATEY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour how many resolutions and letters have been received from miners' lodges in the Seaham division protesting against the means test administered by the commissioners in Durham; and what steps he intends to take to deal with the matter?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have received two protests from miners' lodges in the Sea-ham division about the administration of transitional payments by the commissioners. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 21st February in the course of the Debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. BATEY: As this affects the Prime Minister's division, will the right hon. Gentleman see the Prime Minister and ask him if any resolution has been received?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. LAWSON: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that it is the practice of some public assistance committees, and also appointed commissioners, to include the quarterly reserve pay of ex-soldiers in calculating income, and that such reservists are in fact being deprived of a certain amount of their pay through the consequent reduction of their transitional payments; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this practice being continued?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels) on 17th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. LAWSON: Is reserve pay not given to a man in order that he may maintain a certain standard of fitness in view of his obligations? If this is taken into calculation, he is not having the benefit of his reserve pay.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the question that I answered on 17th February.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that in face of his answer, that reserve pay is still being taken into calculation, a man is losing a certain amount of transitional payment and cannot maintain his fitness?

Sir H. BETTERTON: My answer was that I have no ground for thinking that, in determining transitional payment, the committees will not have regard to any special expenditure to which applicants may be entitled.

Mr. LAWSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Commissioner for the county of Durham is now prepared to meet accredited representatives of those who are subject to transitional payments when the recipients have difficulties about the amount received; whether he has met any such representatives; and whether he can make a statement explaining the present position?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that the commissioners and their officers are always ready to meet accredited representatives of applicants. A number of meetings between such representatives and the First Commissioner have already taken place.

Mr. BATEY (for Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS): 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in adjusting the amount of transitional payment to be paid to a recipient owing to a drop in the family income as a result of a member of the family becoming unemployed, the Durham Commissioners do not make the adjustment retrospective to the effective date; and whether he will represent to the commissioners that where transitional payment to a recipient is to be increased in these circumstances the increase should date from the time of the changed circumstances?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no reason to suppose that the commissioners do not make their determinations retrospective, in proper cases, to the extent allowed by the Regulations. Owing to difficulties that were occasionally experienced in various parts of the country, the Regulations have recently been amended so as to permit determinations to be dated back for an additional week. This should be sufficient to meet any case in which the claimant reports a change of circumstances with reasonable promptitude.

Mr. BATEY: As the revision takes place each month, is not a week a small period to date back, and ought not the revision to date back to the time of the altered circumstances?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, quite recently, in answer to a question put by the hon. Gentleman or one of his friends, I said I would look into the matter. As a result I have made this Regulation enabling retrospective payment for a further week to be made in proper cases. I think that the Regulation will remove the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and in any case before considering the matter further I must first see the working of the Regulation.

Mr. PRICE: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the commissioners appointed to administer transitional payments, and also public assistance committees, in assessing the
income of a family generally take into account the gross instead of the nett earnings of those members who are in employment; and whether, in view of the fact that in many cases deductions from the gross earnings are substantial, amounting in the mining industry approximately to 3s., he will circularise all commissioners and public assistance committees recommending that only the nett earnings shall be taken into account?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no grounds for thinking that in dealing with applications for transitional payments local authorities and commissioners are not fully aware of the powers vested in them to have due regard to expenses necessarily incurred by members of a household in the course of their employment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West Riding of Yorkshire the public assistance committee have a scale, and that that scale is calculated whereby gross earnings are taken into consideration as nett income, and does he not see that this is an injustice to part-time workers?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have not the scale which is in operation in that part of the country at present before me so that I cannot answer the question off-hand.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I send a copy of the scale to the right hon. Gentleman, will he take up the matter with the commissioners or the public assistance committee?

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is the gross earnings or the nett earnings which are taken into account?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I did make some inquiries on the point, and I am told that, speaking broadly, it is the gross earnings less off-takes that are taken into account. That is the answer I received, and I am not in a position to say anything further.

Mr. PIKE: Is it not a fact that the deduction which is made on the ground of income is precisely the same as before?

SEDOEFIELD UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES (CONTRACT).

Mr. BATEY: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Sedgefield, County Durham, unemployment centre tendered for two cupboards for the new offices of the Sedgefield Public Assistance Committee, and as the price of £3 9s. 6d. for each cupboard was the lowest tender it was accepted; and whether he will take steps to see that unemployment centres in receipt of grants shall not compete with commercial firms for public contracts?

Sir H. BETTERTON: L understand that this centre is not in receipt of a grant from Government funds, but I am making further inquiries and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. BATEY: Is this one of the centres under the charity fund, and is it the object of the Government that these centres shall blackleg ordinary trade union conditions

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must not make either assumption. I have said that this centre is not in receipt of a Government grant, and I am making further inquiries and will let the hon. Member know the result.

INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRE, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the setting up of a residential instructional centre for Northumberland?

Sir H. BETTERTON: A residential instructional centre, to accommodate 200 men, will shortly be established on the Kielder Estate, Northumberland. The centre will be open to suitable unemployed men in the depressed areas of the North-East Coast who desire to avail themselves of the opportunity for training and reconditioning. The men will be engaged mainly on work for the Forestry Commission.

Colonel BROWN: How long will these courses last, and when will work start?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It will be open quite soon, but I cannot give a precise date. The length of the course will be 12 weeks.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that there are over 200
men highly skilled in afforestation unemployed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will take that from the hon. Member.

BENEFIT (ROAD WORKERS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of inserting in the new Bill Regulations whereby men employed on road repairs and similar outdoor work who are called off by the foremen on account of bad weather shall be entitled to unemployment benefit for the days of compulsory unemployment as in the case of insured workers in factories, who are entitled to the benefit when works are closed for half a week owing to scarcity of orders?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The same rules already apply in this respect to all classes of insured workers. Loss of work for periods of less than a day at a time is not covered by the insurance scheme.

Mr. CROOKE: Will the right hon. Baronet give me an opportunity of putting further points on the matter before him?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Have Regulations been recently issued which debar an applicant for benefit from making application or having his claim ante-dated for circumstances such as refusing work on account of weather?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind. If he will put a question down, I will give him an answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

STATISTICS.

Mr. PRICE: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the estimated number of persons between the ages of 18 and 21 now unemployed?

Mr. CAPE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the estimated number of juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 now unemployed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 20th February, 1933, there were 134,280 juveniles aged 14 to 17 inclusive, and 248,408
persons, aged 18 to 20 inclusive, on the registers of employment exchanges in Great Britain.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not apparent to the Minister that it is an indictment against the present system, that you have all these young people from 14 to 20 years of age and that there is no room for them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Colonel GOODMAN: In view of the enormous figures and the need for reduction, will my right hon. Friend consider legislation being introduced to restrict the hours of labour of thousands of boys and girls who are at present working from 60 to 80 hours a week?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That raises a question with which I could not possibly deal in answer to a supplementary Question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the reduction of registered employed owing to legislative and administrative changes at the latest possible date; and whether this figure has been below 170,000 at any time since September, 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 27th October, 1932, to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

WOOLLEN AND WORSTED INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUNN: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the drop in the number of insured persons in the woollen and worsted industry from 268,230 in June, 1923, to 232,580 in June, 1932, is due to any special circumstances apart from the present industrial depression; and whether, in view of the increase during the same period of the number of unemployed in this industry from 18,488 to 62,810, any special steps to help this industry are being considered?

Sir H. BETTERTON: About 9,000 of the decrease is due to the exclusion of persons aged 65 and over, but otherwise the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part of the question, I would point out that unemployment in the industry
decreased by nearly 39,000 between September, 1931, and February, 1933.

Mr. LUNN: Are there any special circumstances that the right hon. Baronet could give as the cause of this small number being employed, and what is the Government doing to encourage employment in this industry?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In the last 18 months the amount of unemployment has decreased by no less than 39,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Baronet give any idea of the cause of the colossal increase of unemployment in the textile industries? Does he attribute that to lack of spending power on the part of the workers

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into questions of that kind.

WALES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any special explanation of the fact that the number of wholly unemployed persons in the Wales division has increased from 162,790 in January, 1932, to 188,613 in January last?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This increase is principaly due to a further reduction of employment in the coal-mining industry.

Mr. HALL: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the reduction in employment is very largely due to restrictions imposed upon our coal exports by countries with whom we are engaged in fiscal warfare?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I could not discuss that in answer to a question, certainly not without notice. It is, of course, true that the third 1,000,000 tons of coal under the Italian agreement has not been delivered. That is one contributory cause.

Mr. HALL: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that that will only account for about 4,000 men, and can he give any intimation when orders from this 1,000,000 tons will be placed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

Mr. G. HALL (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of unemployed persons who have been transferred from the Wales division
since 1921, and the relative numbers of people on the register for all occupations in South Wales in 1921 and 1932, respectively?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Statistics are not available regarding the numbers of unemployed persons transferred from the Wales division since 1921. The average number of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the counties of Brecon, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Pembroke were 79,487 in 1921, and 200,256 in 1932.

Mr. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of those who have been transferred under the schemes initiatd by the Ministry of Labour?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I could not say without notice, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will certainly give him the information if I can.

Mr. G. HALL (for Mr. D. GRENFELL): 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the amount of difference between the money value of the determinations of claims for transitional benefit in the Wales division from November, 1931, to the latest available date, and the amount which would have been paid in these claims at the ordinary rate of benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider whether it is possible to furnish this information and will write to the hon. Member.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. HICKS: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in Area VII of the London Public Assistance Committee, which is an area covering a population of over 800,000, it is the general practice to refuse out-relief to persons receiving unemployment benefit or transitional payment on the ground that those payments are considered to be adequate for the people to live on; and if he will issue a circular to local authorities to secure uniformity of treatment and setting out the views of his Department?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): This is a matter within the general discretion of the public assistance authority, and I believe that authority, which of course acts for the whole county, to be alive to the importance of
securing a -proper measure of public assistance and reasonable uniformity of administration. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. G. HALL (for Mr. D. GRENFELL): 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state in a general form the ascertained allocation to wages, materials, purchase of land, and interest charges of a sum of £1,000,000 expended on schemes of public work?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that it is not practicable to allocate the expenditure separately under these heads.

EMPLOYMENT (SOUTH WALES).

Dr. JOHN WILLIAMS: 7
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of employed persons in the mining industry in 1921, 1931 and 1932 in Carmarthenshire, Glamorgan, Monmouthshire and Breconshire, respectively;
(2) the number of employed persons in the iron and steel industry in South Wales for the years 1921, 1931 and 1932, respectively;
(3) the number of employed persons in the tinplate industry in South Wales for the years 1921, 1931 and 1932, respectively?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am having the information desired extracted so far as it is available and will circulate statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as the figures are ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS ACT.

Mr. LEVY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to recent cases in which private residents have been held up by armed men who have forced their way into the houses; and what measures are being taken or are proposed to restrict the distribution of arms which make possible these crimes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, the provisions of the Firearms Act, 1920, are being strictly enforced by the police and, in
addition, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Mr. Cassels) on the 16th February, I am considering the possibility of new legislation to provide special penalties for the possession or use of a firearm or a colourable imitation in connection with the commission of crime or for the purpose of avoiding arrest.

Mr. LEVY: Am I to understand from that reply that the sale of toy pistols which can be converted into lethal weapons will be prohibited, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider revising the existing licences with a view to their reduction?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot go into details in answer to a question, but the whole matter is under consideration, and I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC NOISES (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 23.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons using motor vehicles have been convicted of offences involving the making of noise during 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The particulars collected from the police for the purpose of the annual return of motoring offences show the numbers of convictions but not the numbers of persons dealt with for this class of offence. During 1930, there were 23,468 convictions in England and Wales for silencer offences, but figures are not available for that year in respect of other noise offences. During 1931, there were 21,062 convictions in England and Wales for excessive noise offences of all kinds. I regret I cannot give the information asked for in respect of 1932, as the returns for that year have not yet all been received.

RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the fact that, owing to paragraph 134 of the Salter Report foreshadowing the allocation of £36,500,000 balance of road costs to passenger vehicles, uncertainty continues and is holding up a number of municipal and other transport schemes, thereby aggravating unemployment, he
will remove this uncertainty by a statement on the point?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am unable to add to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 21st February to the effect that questions of taxation are Budget matters which cannot be anticipated.

ROAD SIGNS (METAL STUDS).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the use of metal studs for marking out pedestrians' paths across the London streets, as has been successfully adopted in Paris for many years, in substitution for the "Please cross here boards, which are often illegible to pedestrians through lack of paint, and are invisible to drivers of cars with low roofs?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The best means of indicating crossing places for pedestrians has been engaging the attention of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs appointed by the late Minister of Transport. My hon. Friend is expecting to receive the report of this Committee very shortly, and will then consider what further action is necessary.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider the advisability of making an experiment of the suggestion I have made on a large scale in London before that?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot actually promise to do that, but I am in sympathy with the suggestion, and I will do my best to see that it is brought to the notice of the Department.

MOTOR DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Sir W. BRASS: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to prevent local authorities who at present issue motor driving licences from issuing, as from some future date, any licences to new applicants, who have not previously held licences, until a short oral examination on the recognised rules of the road, including hand signals, shall have been successfully passed, in order that prospective drivers may have a knowledge of the highway code?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The whole question as to the tests, if any, to which applicants for motor driving licences
should be put was discussed at considerable length when the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was before Parliament. Amending legislation would be required to carry out the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, and while I am not at present satisfied that this is necessary, I shall keep the matter in mind.

Sir W. BRASS: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise the danger that arises from people who have no idea of the rules of the road being granted licences without having read the rules?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I understand the danger to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes, but if he will inquire into the causes of road accidents, he will find that the majority are not due to beginners so much as to people who have been driving for some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDER (SENTENCE, EALING).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 24.
asked the Home Secretary if he will inquire into the case of George Samuel Woodward, aged 12½ years, who, on the 13th January, 1933, was charged at Ealing Police Court with breaking into a shop, and was sentenced to 3½ years at Stanhope Industrial School, Ashford; and whether, seeing that the boy's parents were unable to defend him in court, and that this was his first offence, he will consider remitting or reducing the sentence passed upon the boy and releasing his father from the obligation to contribute four shillings a week towards his maintenance at the industrial school?

Sir. J. GILMOUR: I am making inquiry into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Department has called the attention of lay magistrates to the new statutory facilities for giving assistance to poor prisoners in police courts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR PRISON OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Mr. McENTEE: 26.
asked the Home Secretary how many existing officers at
Dartmoor Prison have been passed over for promotion; what were the reasons for disqualifying the officers; and whether the course taken was based on the recommendations of the governor?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that at Dartmoor Prison there are six officers who have been passed over for promotion. Promotion in the prison service is by merit, with due regard to seniority; and when an officer who desires to be considered for promotion is passed over, it is on the ground that his qualifications are substantially less than those of the officer whom it is decided to promote. Consideration would invariably be given to any recommendations submitted on such occasions by prison governors, but the final responsibility must rest with the Prison Commissioners.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any difference between the recommendations of the late governor and the present governor in this particular matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have explained, this is a matter entirely for the Prison Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Colonel CHAPMAN: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the increased charge for the year ending 31st March, 1934, for salaries of teachers in elementary schools in London and in other Grade IV areas, respectively, incurred in consequence of the number of annual increments of salary granted to teachers paid under Grade IV of the Burnham scale of salaries being greater than the number of increments granted to teachers paid under Scale III?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramshotham): On the basis of the latest information available as to the number of teachers in employment and their present position on the salary scales, the estimated additional cost of salaries for the year ending 31st March, 1934, in consequence of the number of annual increments of salary payable in Scale IV areas being greater than that in Scale III areas, is approximately
£191,000 in respect of London, and £96,000 in other Scale IV areas. The cost to the Exchequer is half these amounts.

Colonel CHAPMAN: In view of the fact that throughout their service teachers under Scale IV are receiving a, higher rate of salary than those under Scale III is there any reason why the increments should continue, for a longer period in Scale IV than under Scale III: and will my hon. Friend take steps so that the increments under Scale IV shall continue only for the same period as increments under Scale III do at present?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The scales were settled under the terms of the Burnham Award, and a change from one scale to another is subject to the consent of the local education authority, the teachers and the Standing Joint Committee.

TRAFFIC DANGERS (WARNING).

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the action of the chief constable at Stoke-on-Trent who provided a policewoman lecturer to address children in elementary schools on traffic dangers and how to avoid them; if the result of this educational experiment has been to reduce the number of accidents to school children; and if education committees generally will be encouraged to provide facilities for instruction of the same kind?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is aware of the arrangements in question. He understands that the authority are satisfied that the talks have been effective and that- there are grounds for thinking that they have resulted in some reduction in the number of street accidents to children of school age. As regards the last part of the question, memoranda on traffic dangers have been issued by the Board to local education authorities from time to time, and my Noble Friend has every reason to believe that authorities are alive to the importance of warning children in their schools, either by notice or by the provision of special instruction, on the subject of traffic dangers generally.

Mr. HANNON: Relating to this particular experiment at Stoke-on-Trent, will my hon. Friend call the attention of education authorities throughout the
country to the importance of the result which has been achieved by the action taken by the chief constable?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think that the question, and the answer which I have given, will have the desired effect.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LEAVERS).

Mr. LUNN: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the approximate number of boys and girls, respectively, leaving the elementary schools at the end of each school period?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Government have taken any steps to encourage these children either to continue at school or to provide them with employment in order to take them off the streets?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I hardly think that that matter arises out of the question.

Following is the answer:

My Noble Friend assumes that the hon. Member's question refers to the number of children leaving the elementary schools at the end of each school term. He regrets that no information is available as to the number of leavers at these particular periods of the school year, but the numbers of children leaving public elementary schools in England and Wales at the school leaving age, otherwise than for further full-time education, during the last three years are as follows:

—
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


1929–30
…
228,421
223,470
451,891


1930–31
…
235,738
234,498
470,236


1931–32
…
207,303
207,676
414,979

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DOOR LOCKS.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of bringing to the attention of local authorities the importance, from an economic point of view, of employing
good quality locks in connection with housing schemes and with a view to the increased employment thereby provided?

Sir H. YOUNG: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will bring to my attention any complaints in the matter to which he refers of which he has information.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago his Department issued a circular to local authorities, and will he consider the advisability of doing it again?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. HANNON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very best locks of the world are made in Birmingham?

IMPROVEMENT AREAS.

Mr. WALTER REA (for Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE): 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many improvement areas have been scheduled by local authorities since the passing of the Housing Act of 1930; and what period has generally elapsed since the passing of the local authority's resolution to the confirmation of the improvement order?

Sir H. YOUNG: Resolutions have been passed by 15 local authorities declaring 25 areas to be improvement areas. Such a declaration does not require confirmation by me and the latter part of the question therefore does not arise.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES (TENANTS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health which local authorities in England and Wales have adopted any scheme for ensuring that State-aided houses shall not be occupied by persons of substantial means; and what steps are being taken by his Department in connection with this matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question put on 17th November, of which I am sending him a copy. I have drawn special attention to this matter in the annual report made by me and I am sending an extract from this report for my hon. Friend's information. I have also asked the Association of Municipal Corporations to consider and submit their observations upon a recently published
report made by the Scottish Consultative Council on Local Health Administration and General Health Questions.

Mr. HICKS: Has the Minister yet defined what subsidy means?

Sir H. YOUNG: There has been no need to do so.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the Minister aware that in houses which have replaced slums there are cases of people living there of considerably higher means than the people for whom those houses were built? Will he take action in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: Those are matters which are dealt with in the passages of the Report to which I have referred.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the houses that are to be built under his new scheme are similarly protected against abuse?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among fishermen with regard to recent changes in the administration of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund; and whether he will institute an inquiry into their grievances?

Sir H. YOUNG: The changes that have been made recently in the scheme governing the award of pensions by the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund have been in the direction of improving the position of fishermen, and I am not aware that they have given rise to dissatisfaction among fishermen, or that there are grievances which call for the institution of an inquiry.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the changes which have recently been made have caused dissatisfaction, and has he inquired from the governing body of the fund whether the statement contained in the question as to the existence of this grievance is well founded?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have had no complaints brought to my attention.

Sir M. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, and will he inform the House whether he exercises any supervision over the administration of this fund?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, and it is desirable that the hon. Member should communicate any complaints of which he is aware.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much too much of the money of this fund goes to the Scottish fishermen?

Sir M. WOOD: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the recent request for representation on the governing body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund from a seamen's organisation not at present represented, he will state what reply has been given; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the present scheme so as to permit of all seamen's organisations being adequately represented on the governing body?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure to what seamen's organisation the hon. Member refers in the first part of his question. There are no vacancies at the present time on the Governing Body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, but if the hon. Member will let me know how he thinks that representation of the various classes of beneficiaries could be more satisfactorily secured than under the present scheme, I will see that his suggestions receive consideration.

Sir M. WOOD: I understand that the Officers' Federation made an application? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what reply has been given to their application for representation on the governing body of this fund?

Sir H. YOUNG: I should require notice of that question.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can place a copy of the present scheme under which the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund is being administered in the Library of the House of Commons?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES.

Mr. JOHN MORRIS: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the aggregate value of a ld. rate levied on the total rateable value of all local authorities in England and Wales?

Sir H. YOUNG: The estimated product of a penny rate if levied on the total rateable value of all rateable properties in England and Wales for the current financial year is £1,055,574.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Does that include the value of property exempted under the de-rating scheme?

Sir H. YOUNG: No. It refers only to actual rateable property.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL EXPENDITURE (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. J. MORRIS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the total public assistance expenditure of all local authorities in England and Wales, including all expenditure on transferred Poor Law services, for the last available year?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total expenditure under the Poor Law Acts in the year ending the 31st March, 1931, was £38,561,000 on revenue account and £798,000 on capital account.

Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an average rate poundage of approximately 3s. 3d. levied over the whole of England and Wales would cover the entire cost of public assistance? That being so, does he not think that equalisation of this kind—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

Mr. MORRIS: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the large increase in expenditure for public assistance in England and Wales, particularly in industrial areas, he is prepared to introduce immediately legislation for the purpose of equalising the burden over the whole country?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. The issues raised by the question are receiving consideration by the Government in connection with the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.

Mr. MORRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the scheme formulated by the Mayor of Salford, a copy of which was sent to him by the Salford Corporation?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, and those representations will be taken into consideration.

Mr. MORRIS: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. BATEY (for Mr. E. WILLIAMS): 44.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that 14.1 per cent. of the inhabitants of Lincoln are in receipt of public assistance, what special steps, if any, are being taken to deal with the situation in that city?

Sir H. YOUNG: The figure quoted by the hon. Member relates to the 31st December, 1932. The corresponding figure for the 25th February, 1933 (the latest available), is 8.2, and I understand that special steps are being taken by the council to review the situation in respect of public assistance administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated total cost to the Bentley Council and the West Riding Public Assistance Committee due to the floods which occurred in 1931 and 1932?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed by the urban district council that in addition to the cost of making good damage to their property for which no figure can be given the expenses incurred by them in respect of the floods of September, 1931, and May, 1932, were approximately £1,000 and £2,873, respectively, and by the county council that the expenditure on public assistance was approximately £33 and £50, respectively.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Minister of Health what national assistance, if any, is to be made available for tenants of houses in the Bentley area who have been evicted from their houses three times in the last 18 months on account of floods?

Sir H. YOUNG: There are no funds at my disposal from which financial assistance could be rendered in the regrettable emergency referred to by the hon. Member. The inspectors of the Ministry have been in close touch with the situation, and the reports which I have received from them show that the sufferers are being assisted and the needs of the situation are being met locally, so far as they can be met, with the active cooperation of the county council. The
hon. Member is no doubt aware of the legislative provision in course of being made for improved drainage organisation in the area.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, although public subscriptions were obtained in September, 1931, and in April, 1932, that is not possible in 1933, and does he not think that these sufferers ought to be assisted from some sources other than charitable sources, on their appeal?

Sir H. YOUNG: The reports which I have received from my inspectors on the spot are to the effect that all the immediate needs of the sufferers are being adequately met.

Mr. L. SMITH: In view of the constant flooding of this particular area, will the right hon. Gentleman consider either condemning these dwellings as unfit for habitation, or take vigorous steps to see that such flooding does not recur?

Sir H. YOUNG: The situation is, that the legislation now under consideration is calculated to deal with the situation.

Major COLFOX: Is it true that some of these houses were erected under Government-aided housing schemes?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the floods of the last few weeks have disclosed any remedial work which can be undertaken as a matter of emergency in order to provide employment and to protect. the public against loss through inundations in future?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Major Elliot): I do not think that the recent floods have disclosed any further developments in the general situation with regard to the need for the execution of drainage works. I would remind my hon. Friend that the responsibility for carrying out remedial works as suggested is upon local drainage authorities and is, of course, governed by financial and economic conditions. I may add that catchment boards set up under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, following a conterence among themselves on 10th February last, have expressed their desire to submit their views to the Government, and it is hoped to fix an early meeting with them for this purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, in view of recent floods, his reply of 14th July last still holds good, namely, that any catchment board confronted with a grave emergency may appeal to him with some degree of hope that financial Assistance NN ill be forthcoming?

Major ELLIOT: If they appeal to me, within the limits of the financial resources at, my disposal, I shall do my best to meet them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. LECKIE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many insured persons, probably between 60,000 and 100,000, will cease to be entitled to medical benefit at the end of this year as a result of the passing of the last National Health Insurance Act; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that these people shall receive medical attention when ill?

Sir H. YOUNG: A prolonged extension of insurance was granted under the National Health Insurance Acts to persons who have ceased to be employed and to pay contributions. After the further extension of title to medical benefit during 1933 given under the Act of last year, a number of persons will cease to be entitled to medical benefit on 31st December next. Within the financial resources of the Health Insurance scheme no further extension of insurance rights is permissible. These persons will, after the end of the present year, be in the same position with regard to medical attention during sickness as all other persons who are not within the scope of National Health Insurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ENAMELLED WARE (ANTIMONY POISONING).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the cases of antimony poisoning reported from the use of cheap enamel ware in this country, he will lay down a standard of safe manufacture to which all leading British manufacturers shall be compelled to conform; and whether he will at the same time prohibit the importation of all foreign enamelled ware which does not fulfil the requirements above-mentioned?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no power to lay down a standard such as is suggested. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I have recently issued on the subject.

MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE, LONDON.

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. THORNE): 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give, for the latest possible year, the maternal mortality rates in the Metropolitan Boroughs and the City of London?

Sir H. YOUNG: The information asked for the latest year for which figures are available, namely, 1931, will be found in Table 10 of the Registrar-General's Statistical Review for 1931 (Tables, Part I).

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give a revised estimate of the yield of the Beer Duty, Customs and Excise, for the year ending 31st March next to compare with the last Budget estimate of £80,000,000; and, failing that, can he give the figure for 11 months?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is not the practice to give revised estimates of the receipt of duty during the course of the year, but the approximate yield for the eleven months to 28th February was £69,500,000.

EXPENDITURE (CHINA).

Sir H. CROFT: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total expenditure incurred by the British taxpayer owing to the disorders in China during the last six years classified under the following headings: military, naval, diplomatic, pensions and compensation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I have been unable to obtain the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend as it is not possible to isolate the items of expenditure which should be attributed over the period he mentions to disorders in China.

Sir H. CROFT: Will it be possible for the facts to be ascertained from the
Admiralty and the War Office as to the very large figure for China during these years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid, although I will make inquiries, that it will be impossible to isolate the expenditure which is properly due to the disorders in China from the expenditure due to the general situation in the Far East.

STERLING VALUE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the serious effect which the rise in the value of the £ sterling relative to the currency of other countries, notably of America, is having upon our export trade; and whether he intends to take any budgetary method of preventing this rise becoming permanent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first part of the question appears to me to overstate the position but I am fully aware of the importance of watching the situation closely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman taking budgetary steps to reduce the value of sterling?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no such intention in my mind.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does the situation not show the disadvantage of what is called a managed currency?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. LEONARD: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of claims admitted for repayment of tax deducted by limited companies from their shareholders; the number of shareholders in limited companies registered in Great Britain; the total amount repaid in respect of such claims and the total amount of the income on which tax is paid by the said companies; the number of persons paying tax upon interest on capital received from co-operative societies; the amount of tax paid and the sum on which tax is paid; the total amount of interest paid by co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies' Act; and the number of members of the said societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret I am unable to supply any of the Income Tax
statistics asked for by the hon. Member. The Inland Revenue Department deals with over 1,800,000 claims for repayment annually but these claims relate to all kinds of income that have been subject to tax and no records are kept which would show how many of these claims relate to dividends paid by companies. In the case of co-operative societies the interest paid is not subject to deduction of tax at the source but is assessed to Income Tax in the hands of the recipient if he is liable to Income Tax and no statistics are compiled showing the extent to which the interest in fact bears tax. With regard to the amount of interest paid by co-operative societies and the numbers of their members, I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1931 (Part 3, Section 2).

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH RACEHORSE (CUSTOMS DUTY).

Mr. BERNAYS: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state whether the proper duty has been collected on the horse Royal Ransom; and whether he is satisfied that no attempt was made to induce Customs officials to accept a fictitious valuation for this animal?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. The full duty on this animal has been secured. I have made very full inquiry but I can find no foundation for any suggestion that any corrupt offer was made to any Customs official in connection with this affair.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the Financial Secretary state whether this duty was paid in one sum or in two sums, and how much time elapsed between the first payment and the second payment of the complementary part of the duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether I heard my hon. Friend rightly. Did he ask me whether there was a delay in the payment?

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I asked whether there was a first payment made when the horse was brought into this country and a second payment made some time afterwards, when the Treasury discovered that an inadequate payment had been made the first time?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Does not that show that there was some collusion between the sender in Ireland and the recipient in this country, and will the Treasury snake further inquiries into the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether it necessarily proves that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that not only have I made full inquiries, but that inquiries are still proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, EAST RIDING.

Major CARVER: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made to establish the supply of electricity for lighting and power in the rural districts of Howden, Riccall and Pocklington, in the East Riding of Yorkshire?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Howden and Riccall are both within the area of the North Lincolnshire arid Howdenshire District Company, whose statutory powers only became operative in January of this year. Pocklington is in the area of the Buckrose Light and Power Company, whose powers became operative in May, 1931. I am taking steps to ascertain the actual progress made by the companies and will then communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (BACON IMPORTS).

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any further information with regard to the negotiations with representatives of foreign countries exporting bacon to the United Kingdom for the continuance of the voluntary scheme for regulating bacon imports into this country?

Major ELLIOT: Following the recent negotiations with representatives of the chief bacon exporting countries, shipments of bacon and hams to this country during the month ending 22nd March will, as far as practicable, be limited to quantities, particulars of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures include adjustments to meet seasonal fluctuations. The negotiations are continuing in respect of shipments for the
remaining three months of the period ending 22nd June, which is under review.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Government of Canada had been asked with regard to their imports of bacon?

Major ELLIOT: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

Sir D. NEWTON: Is the Minister of Agriculture aware that much anxiety has been felt among agriculturists in regard to this matter and that the announcement made will be received with much satisfaction by them?

Following are the quantities:

Cwt.


Argentine
5,900


Denmark
493,300


Estonia
7,000


Finland
4,300


Latvia
4,000


Lithuania
39,000


Netherlands
80,300


Poland
79,500


Sweden
37,600


United States of America
51,500


Union of Socialist Soviet Republics
4,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DENMARK.

Mr. PIKE: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of goods imported into Great Britain from Denmark for the year ended 31st December, 1932, and the total value of purchases by Denmark of goods manufactured in Great Britain during the same period?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As stated in the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," for January last, the total declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1932 and consigned from Denmark (including Faroe Islands) amounted to £40,556,327. The exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned to that country during the same year amounted to £9,860,999.

Captain DOWER: May I ask what steps the Government are taking to right this terrific adverse balance of trade with Denmark?

Dr. BURGIN: They are conducting trade negotiations with Denmark for that purpose.

Mr. HANNON: Is this amazing difference in the figures between imports and exports constantly before the Danish delegation throughout these negotiations?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, and not only that, but the great discrepancy to which the hon. Member refers is considerably less than it was in the year 1930–31.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that Denmark in many instances would purchase direct from this country but for the regulations of European cartels?

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether a portion of this disparity in the balance of trade is not due to the action of Imperial Chemical Industries in co-operation with the Bank of England in forcing Denmark to buy from Germany fertilisers which she would prefer to buy from this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I was not aware of either suggestion.

WIRE MATTRESSES (IMPORTS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports into this country of wire mattresses for the 12 months ended 28th February, 1933, or the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the years 1931–32 and 1930–31?

Dr. BURGIN: The total declared value of wire mattresses imported into the United Kingdom during the years ended January, 1930, 1931 and 1932 amounted to £18,999, £6,130 and £2,824, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (CEYLON).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in 1929 Ceylon purchased from this country 31,554,000 square yards of cotton cloth, but in 1932 only 16,656,000 square yards; that during the same period we advanced our purchases of tea from Ceylon from 153,095,000 lbs. to
172,302,000 lbs. and that we are the best customers for Ceylon tea; and whether he will approach the Ceylon Government with a view to the inclusion of cotton cloth in the list of commodities on which imperial preference is granted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am aware of the trade position indicated by my hon. Friend. A preference of 10 per cent. on cotton piece-goods was included in the preference proposals recently submitted by the Ceylon Board of Ministers to the State Council, but this item was rejected by the Council. I at once expressed to the Governor my great concern at this omission; the text of my telegram was issued to the Press in a notice of the 6th of February, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to press this Administration and point out to them that we allow 50 per cent. in the case of tea?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have made that position very clear already.

Sir J. NALL: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to adjust this perfectly ridiculous position in connection with Ceylon tea? Will he take steps to amend the Constitution under which this is done?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LAND SETTLEMENT, HARRIS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the further applications from landless men in Harris for settlement in the Borve deer forest; and whether he has now acquired this forest for land settlement?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am aware that four new applications have recently been received by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. As indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 8th December last the question of the acquisition of Borve has been the subject of discussion with the proprietor, but the matter has not yet reached a stage at which I can make any statement.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the Secretary of State confirm the report that there has been a good deal of raiding in this district and that men at the present time are in possession of land which they have seized?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have seen that statement in certain papers.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny the report?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the original reply, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry on the negotiations as these men have either to find a means of earning a livelihood or be faced with starvation, because there is nothing for them but to work on the land? There is no other employment. This is the Outer Hebrides.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am making further inquiries into the matter referred to in the question, and I will communicate with the hon. Member at an early date. In reply to the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood), if he will put a question on the Paper, I will give him a specific answer.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (INQUIRY).

Mr. McGOVERN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reviewed the evidence in the recent bribery trial in Glasgow High Court; and if he is able now to announce the setting up of a judicial inquiry?

Mr. LEONARD: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the resolutions he has received from the Glasgow Labour party and other public bodies supporting the request of the Glasgow Corporation for a committee of inquiry to investigate the allegations of graft now prevalent, he is now prepared to make a pronouncement as to the Government's decision?

Sir G. COLLINS: With regard to these questions I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions—

Sir G. COLLINS: I desire, with your permission, Sir, to read a statement to the House, and I apologise for its length. I have given careful consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, to the matter re-
ferred to in the questions put to me by the hon. Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), which has also been the subject of representations to me by the Corporation of Glasgow and by other bodies. The proposal is that certain allegations of corruption in connection with the administration of affairs by the Corporation of Glasgow should be inquired into by a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, the Act referred to requires that the subject of inquiry must be a definite matter of urgent public importance. When a similar question relating to Glasgow was before the Government in 1930, it was then decided that the allegations were not sufficiently definite to warrant procedure under the Act.
In view, however, of the recent criminal proceedings, and the disclosures in connection therewith, I think, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate so advises me, that the circumstances are now materially different and there is now a matter sufficiently definite to fall within the scope of the Act and to be susceptible of investigation by a tribunal set up under it. I therefore propose, at any early date, to take the steps necessary to set up such a tribunal which will necessitate the passing of resolutions in this House and in another place. The tribunal, of course, must be dependent upon the evidence laid before it, and I would take this opportunity of expressing very strongly that a public duty rests upon those who are in a position to give evidence relevant to the subject of inquiry to tender such evidence to the tribunal. In this connection and for the information of those who may be concerned, I would point out that, under the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, a witness before any such tribunal is entitled to the same immunities and privileges as it he were a witness before the High Court or the Court of Session. That means that the witness enjoys an absolute privilege in giving evidence so that he cannot be subjected to any action of damages for slander in respect of any statement made by him in the witness box in the course of his evidence which is relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, and also that he is not bound in the witness box to answer any question tending to in-
criminate himself. With regard to this last point, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate to say that, in the circumstances of the present case and with a view to removing any obstacle to the fullest investigation of the matters to be referred, he feels justified in intimating that any person, other than a member of the Corporation of Glasgow, who gives evidence before the tribunal, which may involve an admission that he has committed or been implicated in any way in a criminal offence relating to the matters being investigated, will not be prosecuted for such criminal offence but will be regarded as being in the same position as a person who has been called as King's evidence by the Crown in a criminal trial. That means that, by the giving of such evidence the witness will automatically be discharged from all liability to prosecution.

Mr. LEONARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the field of this inquiry will be sufficiently extensive as to go outside the terms of the Resolution passed by the Corporation limiting the inquiry simply to the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: My hon. Friend will see the terms of reference to this tribunal when they are on the Order Paper.

Mr. McGOVERN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very full statement, I would ask him if he can give us some indication at this moment as to the composition of this tribunal and as to where the sittings of the tribunal will take place?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am at present considering the composition of this Committee, and it may take a little time to set up. In all probability, this Committee will sit in Glasgow, but the specific place is not yet settled.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer as to whether the sittings will be private or public?

Sir G. COLLINS: That, I think, would be best left to the judgment of the Committee which we shall set up.

SALMON FISHERY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to take any action
and, if so, of what nature, in connection with the artificial hatching of salmon in Scottish rivers, as recommended in the recent Report of the Committee on the Artificial Propagation of Salmon?

Sir G. COLLINS: In the present circumstances of financial stringency, it has not been possible to pursue the question of carrying out the experiments suggested in the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers; but the matter will be reconsidered when conditions are more favourable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

CHARLES BRADLAUGH (MEMORIAL).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider favourably a proposal to erect within the precincts of the House a tablet or other memorial to Charles Bradlaugh, formerly Member for Northampton, the centenary of whose birth is being celebrated this year?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I could not entertain the idea of a memorial to Bradlaugh involving any charge upon public funds. If any person or persons are desirous of presenting such a memorial, it would be necessary to follow the recognised procedure as regards statues, busts, or other memorials in the House of Commons—a copy of which I am sending to my right hon. Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would my right hon. Friend consider receiving a deputation on this matter from those who are interested in broadening the bounds of freedom in this House?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Honestly I do not see the point in receiving a deputation, as it is very strictly laid down that we can only put up memorials at the public expense as the result of a, specific Vote of the House, and, in regard to the presentation of a memorial, there is recognised procedure, in which the Whips of each party are consulted, then the Royal Fine Art Commission, and then the Lord Great Chamberlain and myself.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And the Bishops?

Mr. MAXTON: Can any Member of the House receive a copy of those rules and regulations?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.

Mr. MAXTON: May I have one?

TELEPHONE CABINETS.

Mr. PIKE: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the total number of telephone kiosks erected or installed in the House of Commons during the Christmas Recess; and if he will state the total cost of such installations?

Thee ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): As a result of strong complaint made by hon. Members regarding a number of the existing telephone cabinets, arrangements were made to reconstruct 18 cabinets at a total direct cost of about £800. No additional cabinets were installed.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that London newspapers have stated that during the Christmas Recess no fewer than 50 kiosks were erected at an average cost of £90 each?

Sir E. BENNETT: I saw the statement in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY, (OVERTIME, KENT).

Mr. LAWSON: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the number of men and boys who were at work on the last four week-ends ending 26th February in the Snowdown, Betteshanger, and Chislet Collieries, Kent; whether he will give the numbers for each colliery; and whether any worked more than eight hours, and the number, if any?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) regarding the publication of information relating to individual undertakings. If the hon. Member has reason to think that overtime has been worked illegally at any of these pits, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made into this case, and will he give serious attention to the strong complaints made about the only too common overtime that is being worked in the mining areas?

Mr..BROWN: I shall be very glad to consult my hon. Friend on the matter.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister refrain from making inquiries until someone makes a definite charge?

Mr. BROWN: That is why I said I would consult with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WAR OFFICE).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of machines employed in the work of the Army Pay Department; and if the mechanisation of this Department is now complete?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Each regimental pay office at home and the larger pay offices overseas are in possession of embossing and printing machines. In addition there are adding and listing machines in all pay offices in which the bulk of the work justifies their use. The total figure is about 75.

Mr. WHITE: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the total personnel of the War Office, including the financial staff at out-stations, and also the corresponding figure in March, 1914?

Mr. COOPER: The total personnel of the War Office, including the financial staff at out-stations, temporary typists, messengers, cleaners, etc., for the financial year 1933 will be 2,246. The corresponding number for 1914 is 1,878.

Mr. WHITE: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the total personnel of the civilian finance branch at the War Office; and what proportion of the personnel have had actual experience of working conditions in the out-stations?

Mr. COOPER: The total civilian personnel of the financial staff at the War Office shown on page 223 of the Army Estimates for the financial year 1933 is 264. I am unable at such short notice to state the number who have had actual experience in the out-stations, as this information could only be obtained by an examination of the records of the whole of the personnel.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY).

Mr. TINKER: 76
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the cost of the two Household Cavalry regiments for 1932?

Mr. COOPER: The approximate annual effective cost of the two Household Cavalry regiments is estimated to be £158,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH AIRCRAFT).

Mr. MANDER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the embargo on the export of arms to the Far East will affect the Air Ministry licences granted last year for the manufacture of British aircraft in Japan?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin) (for Sir J. SIMON): The embargo does not affect the manufacture of aircraft in Japan.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. DORAN: 22.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the present situation in Germany, he will take steps to prevent any alien Jews entering this country from Germany?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not within the contemplation of the law that there should be discrimination against aliens on grounds of religious belief or racial origin, but there are adequate powers under the Aliens Order to protect this country from any undesirable influx of aliens, and, as I stated in reply to a question by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 21st February, the principle on which this Order is administered is that the interests of this country must predominate over other considerations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I raise a point of Order about this question? I hope that I am not too sensitive, but I wish to ask if the phrase "alien Jews" in the question is a proper phrase to use in this connection, seeing that the question relates to aliens generally; and, may I also ask, is the phrase "alien Jews" not an offensive phrase to use of people who are represented here?

Mr. DORAN: May I say that this question was accepted by Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: I see no objection to the question.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make it perfectly clear to the House that no disability of any kind will be imposed on any immigrant coming into this country on account of his religion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Each case is considered on its merits.

Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of thousands of Jews are now leaving Germany and scurrying from there to this country, and that other countries are closed against them; and is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, as regards the Aliens Act, you can drive a carriage-and-pair through it and that aliens are coming here, on three months' and six months' leave in order to get naturalisation?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House quite certainly to understand that, whatever restrictions are applied, Jews will not be separated out for special treatment and repression?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, certainly. There is no differentiation in these cases. Each is judged on its merits.

Mr. DORAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the original question is mine: Are we prepared in this country to allow aliens to come in here from every country while we have 3,000,000 unemployed? If you are asking for a von Hitler in this country, we will soon get one.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS).

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a report that two British Indian subjects, Mr. Naidu and Mr. Nambian, have been arrested in Germany, and whether immediate inquiry will be made into the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN (for Sir JOHN SIMON): The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Am-
bassador is already in communication with the competent German authorities, and has learnt unofficially that Mr. Naidu has now been released.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what the business for next week will be, and how far he intends to go to-night if the Motion on the Paper dealing with the Sittings of the House is carried?

Mr. BALDWIN: The business for next week will be:
Monday, Second Reading, Agricultural Marketing Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution.
On Tuesday and Thursday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Air and Navy Estimates respectively, and to consider the essential Votes in Committee.

Tuesday: Air Estimates, 1933, Votes A, 1, 4, 3 and 8.

Thursday: Navy Estimates, 1933, Votes A, 1, 10 and 2.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

During the week the Government hope to make further progress with the Local Government (General Exchequer Contributions) Bill and to consider Motions to approve the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, and the Scottish Raspberries Marketing Scheme.

Private Members' business will be taken on Wednesday and Friday.

Mr. LANSBURY: What about tonight?

Mr. BALDWIN: We hope to get the first three Orders.

Mr. LANSBURY: With regard to the business to-night, may I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there may be a rather prolonged discussion on the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill? There is a number of Members who feel very strongly that a very vital principle is involved in that Bill. May I also call attention to the fact, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree, that the Agricultural Marketing Bill is a Bill of the size and
importance that usually warrant two days' discussion I think it is rather out of the ordinary course of business to ask us to take the Financial Resolution the same night, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that decision. Then I want to give notice that we propose to negotiate through the usual channels as to whether it will not be possible to take the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, and the Scottish Raspberries Marketing Scheme some time before Eleven o'Clock at night. They are rather important.

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the two points which the right hon. Gentleman has put, I think we are not unreasonable and we are quite willing to give consideration to them. At any rate, so far as to-night is concerned, we have no intention of sitting up if there is really a general desire to discuss the Third Reading.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is not averse to considering the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an additional day on the Agricultural Marketing Bill, because I wish to associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition in that demand? Agriculture at any time calls for a large amount of discussion in this House from Members who do not frequently take part, but, in addition, this Bill, if our reading of it is correct, is very wide and far-reaching, and other hon. Members, who do not normally take part in agricultural Debates, will want to participate. I support very strongly the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition that one day cannot be regarded as sufficient for this important Measure.

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member generally understands so clearly that possibly I did not make myself clear just now. What I said deserved consideration was the request of the Leader of the Opposition that we should not push the passage of the Financial Resolution on the same evening as the Second Reading. That, I think, is quite worthy of consideration.

Mr. HANNON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any date has yet been fixed for the Committee stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions. (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: No.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that there is no possibility of getting a second day for the Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that when we come to the Financial Resolution we shall really, if we get the extra time for that, continue the discussion.

Mr. MAXTON: The Leader of the Opposition knows very well—better than most—how very difficult it is to discuss the big, broad, general principles on a Financial Resolution and to keep within the order of the House. The Second Reading is the appropriate stage for a full general Debate on the whole position of agriculture and the way proposed in the Bill to meet the situation. It is a matter of first Governmental importance. This is no second-rate Bill. It is the biggest —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I do not want that to be misinterpreted. This is one of the big items of Government policy, and I am asking the Leader of the House if he will not grant us a second day for its discussion.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to support the suggestion made that this Bill is so large a Bill and raises so many questions of important policy that there ought to be two days for a full discussion. It might be possible that one part of the second day might be devoted to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BALDWIN: Careful consideration will be given to the allocation of time for the Second Reading and the Financial Resolution.

Colonel GRETTON: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend anticipates that the Debate on the Financial Resolution will be as wide—and that we can then discuss the whole question of policy and detail—as on the Second Reading?

Mr. BALDWIN: No. As my right hon. and gallant Friend knows, that is within the competence of the Chair, and I cannot answer that question.

Colonel GRETTON: Then may I ask you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely outside my province.

Mr. MAXTON: In my attempt to get at the responsible party, do I understand that if we approach the Chief Patronage Secretary through the usual channels there will be an allocation of two days as between the Second Reading and the Financial Resolution?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is not growing in his capacity for understanding. I suggest that discussion should take place between the various parties as to what will be the best allocation of time as between the two stages, and I cannot say anything more at the moment.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask whether this means a change in the business already set down for Tuesday next?

Mr. BALDWIN: No—that, I can say.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 33.

Division No.77.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,w.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Calne, G. R. Hall-


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Albery, Irving James
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Borodale, Viscount
Carver, Major William H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bossom, A. C.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Aske, Sir Robert William
Boulton, W. W.
Castle Stewart, Earl


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Balnlel, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Bank, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Broadbent. Colonel John
Christie, James Archibald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarke, Frank


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Col. D. C. (Nth'I'd, Hexham)
Clarry, Reginald George


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Clayton. Dr. George C.


Beit. Sir Alfred L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Burnett, John George
Colfox, Major William Philip


Bernays Robert
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Conant, R. J. E.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cook, Thomas A.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooke, Douglas
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Copeland, Ida
Jamleson, Douglas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Robinson, John Roland


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Crookshank. Col. C. do Windt (Bootle)
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross, Ronald D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Roes Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cross, R. H.
Knebworth, Viscount
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crossley, A, C.
Knight, Holford
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Curry, A, C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davison. Sir William Henry
Leckle. J. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Denville, Alfred
Levy, Thomas
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Doran, Edward
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Locker-Lampson.Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Selley, Harry R.


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington. Neville W.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smlthers, Waldron


Elmley, Viscount
McKeag, William
Soper, Richard


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A,


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir lan
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Fleming. Edward Lascelles
Maitland, Adam
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Flint, Abraham John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stevenson, James


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt, Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fremantle, Sir FrancTs
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Glossop. C. W. H.
Mayhow. Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Milne, Charles
Summersby, Charles H.


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd A Chlew'k)
Templeton, William P.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gower, Sir Robert
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C"mb'rld, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Granville. Edgar
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Train, John


Grimston, R. V.
Moss, Captain H. J,
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Guinness. Thomas L, E. B.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nail, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Mull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hamilton, Sir George (ilford)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Captain Edward T.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Harbord, Arthur
O'Connor, Terence James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hartington. Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
wells, Sydney Richard


Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Weymouth, Viscount


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Patrick, Colin M.
White, Henry Graham


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cutbbert M.
Pearson, William G.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Petherick, M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wlndeor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hills, Major Rt Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Womersley, Walter James


Hopkinson. Austin
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Pybus, Percy John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hornby, Frank
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'oaks)


Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



Hudson, Capt. A. U M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
TELLERS FOR THE AVTS.—


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ray, Sir William
George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cape, Thomas
Daggar, George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Cove, William G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Buchanan, George
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Edwards, Charles




George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Price, Gabriel


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine.L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Kirkwood, David
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Lawson, John James
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1933.

MR. COOPER'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

4.10 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
A year ago, when it was my duty to introduce the Army Estimates before the House of Commons, I warned hon. Members that those Estimates were the Estimates for an exceptional year, that they must not be taken as the standard to which any future Estimates could be expected to conform, and that we were making that year economies which could be justified solely by the financial position of the country. I added that those economies were made with great misgiving that they were made to the detriment of the efficiency of the forces, that in one particular respect we would save nearly £1,000,000 on one item which we would have to replace in the coming year; and that we saw no prospect of saving it in any other direction. It is, therefore, with a clear conscience that I now bring to the House of Commons Estimates which show an increase over those of last year of £1,462,000. I do not suppose there is any pacifist, however extreme his views may be—and those who hold extreme views do sometimes advance very curious sentiments—who would say that it is a sound method of proceeding towards Disarmament to render such armaments as you retain inefficient.
It is not necessary to apologise for or to defend the size of the British Army as it exists to-day. I do not think that it has ever been seriously criticised either in this House or elsewhere. According to ex-President Hoover's estimate, the British Army is insufficient at present to carry out merely the police duties for which it is responsible in the British Empire, and if the size of the British Army is justified, then nobody can criticise those who spend such money as is necessary to render that Army efficient. Economies which detract from the efficiency of the Army are obviously false economies, and I do not suppose that any
hon. Members opposite will criticise us for introducing these Estimates this year, when they remember that two years ago, when a Socialist Government had been in office for two years, when the international horizon was certainly no more cloudy than it is to-day, they introduced in this House Estimates which were de fended by the then Socialist War Minister, Mr. Tom. Shaw, on the ground that they had been cut down to the lowest possible point, and which were £2,000,000 higher than those we are introducing to-day. The increased expenditure does not represent any augmentation whatever in the establishment of the British Army, in the scale of munitions or in preparations for war. It is simply to replace the cuts which were made last year in face of the danger of national bankruptcy which was then thought—and rightly thought—to be even a greater danger than that of having inefficient fighting services.
As the House is aware, the principal economy last year and the principal increase this year is connected with the Territorial camps. Last year it was decided that we would ask the Territorial Army to forgo for one year their annual camps, and it was realised at the time that we were asking a very great sacrifice on their part. That sacrifice was made cheerfully and without complaint. I am able to say that this year we are making full provision once again for the Territorial Army to hold their camps in the ordinary manner, and this decision has cost the Army Estimates approximately £900,000. I should like to take this opportunity to repeat the tribute that I paid last year to the Territorial Army for the way in which they took that decision. It was asking a great deal of them, and they accepted it without demur and without complaint. I am glad to say that during the year nearly every unit of the Territorial Army, owing to the enthusiasm of all ranks and their unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices, was able to hold a camp for a few days during the summer months. These camps were often undertaken at great inconvenience to the members of the units concerned and very often at considerable expense to the officers and others.
They were assisted by the Regular Army officially, and sometimes, I think,
unofficially. The Regular Army in the districts did everything they could to help and to lend anything they could lend to make the temporary voluntary camps a great success. They were a great success. In some instances where tents were not forthcoming, the Territorials camped in barracks alongside the Regulars, and I am sure that both forces benefited by the closer acquaintance. The Territorials obviously learned a great deal in discipline and training from the Regulars, and the Regulars perhaps acquired something in enthusiasm from the Territorials. I am very glad that this trial, as it were, of the enthusiasm and loyalty of the Territorial Army has taken place, and that it withstood the trial so well. There have been few complaints, and at the end of it the Territorial Army is as enthusiastic as it was before.
Great sacrifice was also demanded from the Officers Training Corps. They were deprived of their camps, but they also have maintained their high standard of efficiency. At the beginning of this year we had a conference at the Staff College, at which were present the headmasters of the principal schools of England, and we discussed with them the future of the junior branch of the Officers Training Corps which is represented in all their schools. I was much interested to hear the views of the headmasters as to the value of the Officers Training Corps simply from the point of view of the schools and the importance that they attached to it. We were very glad to be able to assure them that we equally attached the greatest importance to the Officers Training Corps, that it did not exist solely for the pleasure or profit or interest of the schools themselves, but that it performed an invaluable service of furnishing officers for the Regular and Territorial Armies, and that in any emergency, for which we at the War Office would be responsible, we would be able to rely on the important support which that branch of the Officers Training Corps could give us.
It was foreseen when the decision was taken not to hold camps last year that it was bound to affect adversely recruiting for the Territorial Army. After all, the main attraction of the Territorial Army for years has been their annual camps,
and when they saw the camps abolished and that it was uncertain whether they would be revived, it was difficult for them to keep recruiting up to the normal standard. It fell off 12,000 or 13,000 last year, and the numbers to-day are 35,000 below recruiting establishment. I do not think that we need be unduly alarmed with regard even to that figure. As soon as it was made known that the camps were to be resumed, an improvement was at once noticed in recruiting for the Territorial Army. That improvement has been maintained. I need hardly say that we are doing everything possible to encourage it. A special campaign is being conducted throughout the country. My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War and the Director-General of the Territorial Army have been addressing meetings which have been extremely successful. They have been held in every part of the country, and more are to be held in future to encourage recruiting for the Territorial Army.
I would like to take this occasion to make an appeal, and to ask hon. Members to take such opportunities as they may have to make a similar appeal, to employers of labour throughout the country. They can do so much to assist recruiting for the Territorial Army if they see that men who join that force are allowed to get away for the camps in summer, and are allowed to take their drill, and that allowance is made for them to undertake the duties that joining the Force imposes on them. I am sure that employers of labour who take the line of encouraging their men to join will be rewarded by finding that it does the men themselves a good deal of good; it does good to their health and their sense of discipline, and they come back from camp more ready for hard work, more prepared to throw their hearts and minds into it than when they went away. I am sure that Members throughout the House who are in touch with their constituencies can do a tremendous amount in that way to assist recruiting. One other direction in which it is hoped during this year to encourage recruiting is the proposal to hold a review in London of the London units of the Territorial Army. I hope that it will be found possible to hold the review in summer, but arrangements have not been completed, and it is impossible for me to say more about it.
As far as recruiting for the Regular Army is concerned, the year has been entirely satisfactory. The present numbers are not quite up to establishment. That is not owing to any shortage of recruits. We are expecting that more people will join the Colours this year than will leave, and that at the end of the year the situation will be entirely normal in every respect. Last year I informed the House that we were making serious cuts in the training of the Regular Army, and those cuts were made with greater misgivings than any other cuts, because it was felt that we were risking the efficiency of the first line of defence. This year we are giving the Army its normal and full training. That is also responsible for some slight increase in expenditure. It is intended to hold concentrations of two divisions and two cavalry brigades on Salisbury Plain in September, and of a division at Catterick. Two brigades of the 4th Division will be concentrated at Colchester, and another will be trained in Sussex; and all battalions of the Royal Tank Corps will be in training in co-operation with the other arms. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the General Staff that we have been able to make this arrangement this year, and I would again remind hon. Members that this is only the normal procedure and what the Army demands for average and ordinary efficiency, and that any increase of our Estimate in this respect does not show any change from the normal policy of the Army Council.
We have been able during the year to get on with the mechanization of the Army. We have been able to assure ourselves that the light tractor, which has been adopted as the normal tractor for field artillery is, as it was believed to be, the correct machine to do that work, and we have been able to equip another field artillery brigade with this light tractor. Experiments are being made with a new four-wheeled vehicle which, it is suggested, is capable of doing all that the six-wheeled vehicle can do across country of the roughest kind. These experiments will prove of the greatest interest and importance in any future developments. Experiments have been going on for many years with regard to the Tank Corps. It has now been decided that light and medium tanks
should be employed in combination, and therefore the tank battalions have been reorganised on that basis. A battalion will consist of a headquarters, three companies, each including medium and light tanks, and a fourth company of light tanks.
While speaking of mechanisation, I should like to inform the House of an interesting experiment which took place last year in North Africa. A convoy was formed of four vehicles to travel over a large district of country where they would encounter almost every difficulty which such vehicles would ever be expected or asked to encounter in any part of the world. It was composed of a 30 cwt. Crossley lorry six-wheeler, a 30 cwt. Commer lorry four-wheeler, a 15 cwt. Morris commercial van, and a nine horse power Riley car. They set out from Cairo in January last year and in 29 consecutive days covered 2,900 miles and reached their objective, Juba, near the Uganda border. The return journey was equally successful, and in all they covered 5,600 miles. They kept records of every delay and hindrance with which they met, and during the whole of the journey they were held up owing to mechanical defects for only three hours 50 minutes. The greatest credit is due to the men who were in charge of the convoy, namely, four officers and five non-commissioned officers.
It is a very remarkable record if you think of cars of that kind of calibre and weight travelling over every kind of ground—desert, swamp, fen and moor—without any possibility of resorting to workshops, and carrying it out so satisfactorily. During the whole time not one of the vehicles suffered from any major mechanical defect and none broke down. That shows three things. It shows that these particular vehicles can do that which is of the greatest military importance; that we are on the right lines in our development of mechanical transport; and that these cars are admirably fitted for every kind of Dominion and Colonial use. I hope that full publicity is given to this experiment, and it is largely up to the manufacturers of the cars concerned to give that publicity for it will materially assist the export of British motor cars. We are arranging for a very similar one over an even more arduous course to be undertaken during the
present year, and I hope the results will be equally satisfactory.
Last year I had to report many distressing features with regard to the conditions in which the troops were housed. I am glad to say we have been able to remedy the major defects in this respect, and that we have, by the judicious expenditure of such funds as we have at our disposal, rendered the various barracks and huts in which the troops are lodged more habitable than they were. This also has cost money, and there remains, as there does in every department, a great deal still to be done. But what we have done has produced satisfactory results, because during this year the health of the troops has been better than in the past, which is something to boast of in a year in which there has been so much illness among the civilian population. Not only the health, but the discipline of the troops has improved during the year, for although the strength of nearly every battalion increased the number of courts-martial, the number of convictions and sentences of imprisonment and detention has diminished considerably.
Perhaps some hon. Members have been disturbed, either in their military or in their aesthetic sense—I have had complaints made to me personally—by reports which have reached them, or illustrations they have seen in the Press, of a new uniform which it is stated the troops are to wear in the future. I can assure the House that there is at any rate no immediate cause for alarm in this respect. A committee was set up some months ago to inquire into the question of the uniform worn by the troops on active service, and to see whether anything could be done in order to render it more comfortable, lighter and more suitable generally for the purposes for which it was designed. That committee has reached some provisional conclusions only, and, in pursuance of these conclusions, a certain number of troops have been furnished with a new type of uniform which will be thoroughly tested during the manoeuvres this year. If as a result of that test they are convinced that these reforms are justified and are desirable, then it will be for them to report to the Army Council, and for the Army Council and the other authorities concerned finally to decide whether this
reform is desirable, or, if not, whether any reform at all is desirable in this matter.
While on the subject of clothing, I would remind hon. Members that a year ago I informed them of the decision to close down the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico, and I then said that it had been decided, pending the result of an experiment which was to be tried, to carry on for a short time the manufacture of full dress at the factory—until we could be sure whether it was possible to obtain satisfactory full dress from the trade. The experiments which have been conducted have resulted in our being able to decide that the trade is perfectly qualified to furnish this form of uniform, and therefore it is not intended to set up any alternative factory. I always thought it would not be a wise policy to create a Government factory for such a limited purpose, and I am very glad that the trade have assisted us in these experiments to such an extent that we are now confident that the trade will in future be able to furnish all that we require, and that a very substantial saving will accrue to Government funds as a result.
Vocational training has gone on in a remarkably satisfactory way. I think that during the past year some 2,203 men have passed through these vocational training centres, of whom 1,706, representing 77 per cent., have gone straight from those centres into employment. Those are the figures up to the 30th September last year. Taking the last four years together, the average of those who have gone straight from the training centres to employment is a little higher; and, when we recall the unemployment during the past year, I think those figures alone entirely justify the existence of these centres. Of the remaining 23 per cent., we are not by any means sure that they have not subsequently found employment, but it is impossible, unfortunately, to keep in touch with everybody who leaves these centres. Certainly it is to be hoped that at least a large proportion of the remaining 23 per cent. subsequently found employment. I would like to see these vocational training centres used more than they are. I would like to see more men apply to go through them. The number of men who go into them from the Army is not yet satisfactory. I hope that during the coming
year something will be done by officers and by any other agency that is practicable to encourage men to go from the Army into the training centres, because there is nothing more distasteful to anybody who cares for the Army than to think of men, after seven years or more of service in the Army, in which they have done their very best, going straight from that Army to join that melancholy, tragic army of the unemployed.
During this year many small Departmental economies have been made, which are hardly worth mentioning to the House to-day, but which do show the continued efforts of the War Office and the Army Council to save money wherever it can be saved. We are always on the lookout for any possible saving, both with a view to the advantage which thereby accrues to the State and the advantage which accrues to the Army, because if we can save money in one direction we may be allowed—though one is never sure that that will be the case—to spend it in another. I assure hon. Members that very careful consideration is given to every proposal for economy which is put forward. To give an instance, we have gone carefully into the proposals submitted by certain Members of this House who put up a list of proposals for economies throughout the Government service. Some of them have been adopted and some have been partly adopted, and even those which Have not been adopted have not been dismissed, for we are still prepared to consider them and are thinking over them. The difficulty in these matters is, very often, that they involve in their inception certain capital expenditure, and schemes which, though they may result in final economy, would probably increase expenditure during the current year, are the kind of schemes which people who are forming Estimates aye always inclined to put off to the year that is coming.
Throughout all these proposals, throughout the recommendations of the Private Members Commitee which went into the question of economy, throughout the proposals of all the committees, from the Geddes Committee to the May Committee, there has been an underlying suggestion that more might be done by greater amalgamation, by greater co-
ordination, between the Fighting Services. I am fully convinced that there is a great deal of truth in that suggestion, though I would remind hon. Members that a great deal has already been done in that direction. Ever since the War reforms have been introduced with a view to securing greater co-ordination. We have, for instance, a contracts coordination committee, which does a great deal to see that there is no unnecessary competition between the three Fighting Services in the matter of contracts. We have also done a great deal of co-ordination in such matters as hospitals, chaplaincy services, education, research and experiment and supply services generally, and, while I should be the last to say that there is not more to be done in this direction, I assure hon. Members that the War Office are fully alive to the importance of this avenue of approach towards economy, and that we are pursuing that particular objective as much as it is possible to do so at present. We shall entertain with the greatest interest and greatest sympathy any suggestions which may be made in this Debate, or at any other time, for securing economy upon these lines.
During the past year there has been one important change in the composition of the Army Council, and I am sure the House will join with me in offering a tribute to our late Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Lord Milne, who vacated his appointment a few weeks ago. He held that, the most important position in the British Army to-day, for seven years, under four different Administrations and under four different Secretaries of State. During the whole of the time great changes have been effected in the Army, and I think there are no critics who will deny that those changes have resulted in the greater efficiency of the Army. He was able to make successive Army Councils work together enthusiastically, and on the best of terms, as a team, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite who have had the privilege and the advantage, as I have had, of serving with him will join with me in offering him a tribute, and in assuring the House that the country has lost for the time being a great public servant and a very useful member of the War Office and the Army.
The Army during recent months has had even more irreparable losses to
record. We have lost in a few months three distinguished Field-Marshals. In the summer Lord Plumer died. I am sure that there are throughout the British Empire British subjects who served under him during the War who will regret his death, who will feel that they have lost in him somebody who had become to them, during those arduous years, the symbol of confidence and of victory. He was one of the most popular and one of the most successful of those who held high command during those anxious years. In Lord Methuen we lost ont of our oldest Field-Marshals. He had done the State great service over many years. When the Field-Marshal was dying and had already lost the power of speech he asked for a piece of paper. Given writing materials, with his last effort he scrawled three words on that piece of paper: "Good-bye, Scots Guards." A facsimile of that message was given to every man in the regiment, and I am sure those pieces of paper will be treasured, not alone for many years but for many generations, as evidence of that spirit of comradeship and of regimental loyalty which pervades the British Army.
The last to go was Sir William Robertson, the best known perhaps of all. His career is one which might serve as an inspiration to any young man in any walk of life who is thinking of joining the Army. It is an evidence that even in these days, and in the days that went before, that high ideal, which was one of the ideals of the French Revolution, the career open to talent, does and can exist in the British Army. There was a. man who started in the ranks and who ended as a Field-Marshal. His name is one which is almost a household word wherever British soldiers meet together. Like all old soldiers who have seen something of war and known the horrors of it, there was no more enthusiastic advocate for the cause of peace, and there was nobody who denounced war in stronger or more vigorous terms than the late Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson.
One of the proposals for economy, among other reforms, is that we should abolish the post of Field-Marshal. If we were to do that, we should save a few thousand pounds a year to the Revenue, but, in my opinion, that financial saving would not be worth what I would call the sentimental loss. When I say "sentimental" I am not using that word in a
derogatory sense. I am not speaking of sentiment as something that is unreal and unimportant, for everybody knows that sentiment is one of the most powerful agencies in human life and is one of the strongest things in the world. The fact that to the last days of their lives the names of those three Field-Marshals of whom I have spoken were on the active list of the British Army was, I think, of real value and a real source of strength to the Army. To-day, the prizes that a military career offers are not too many and are not too glittering. We still want to persuade the best of our youth to join the Army. We still want to encourage the right and laudable ambition that they have to serve their country. I cannot help thinking that the knowledge that those rewards existed for the fortunate few who are at the summit of their career must have been of some importance in deciding young men whether they would adopt this noble profession or not.
I have given a short account of the fortunes of the Army during the past year, and of the prospects during the year that is to come. The Army has suffered during the past year, as have so many institutions and individuals, from the financial stringency of these days. The Army has borne those sufferings with exemplary patience and lack of complaint. It is now looking forward, as are so many other people and institutions, to the possibility of better times. I am sure that the House this afternoon, remembering the Army's performance in the past will send it a message of congratulation and encouragement.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I arm sure that I shall be expressing the views of the whole House in congratulating the Financial Secretary to the War Office upon the admirable manner in which he has presented the Estimates, and upon the way in which he has made them interesting. It is not an easy thing to present Service Estimates to this House, or to prevent them from becoming a, weary, dull recital of a number of disconnected points. The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the extremely interesting statement that he has made. May I also, on behalf of my hon. Friends, echo what he said with regard to the service of Lord Milne, who has now retired from the General Staff. He was not at the War Office
when I was there but, in common with everyone else, I knew of his very great services. I would also associate myself with what the Financial Secretary has said with regard to the distinguished Field-Marshals who have departed from us this year.
When I turn to the general question of these Estimates, the first thing that I am struck by is a certain omission. I read the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates, and the Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Air Estimates, and I noticed a difference. That difference is extended to the hon. Member's speech. In. the Air Estimates, almost at the beginning there is a paragraph headed "Disarmament," with a. discussion in regard to the policy of disarmament. There is no such paragraph in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, and throughout the statement that the hon. Gentleman has made there was not a, reference to the Disarmament Conference or to the discussions which have been going on at Geneva, either with regard to quantitative or qualitative disarmament. In fact, the whole of his speech might have taken place in a time before the League of Nations existed, and when no Disarmament Conference had ever been called.
The second point—I am afraid that I must just allude to it because others will no doubt do so—is one that we mention every year. One cannot consider Army Estimates apart from Air Estimates and Navy Estimates. Defence is a single question, and we never get a full discussion of defence questions in this House. The point that strikes ones that we have increases this year, considerable in the Army Estimates, large in the Navy Estimates and some, at all events, in the Air Estimates. We are told that last year was a very exceptional year, and that the Services all had to undergo certain cuts because of the very serious condition of this country. What surprised me was that apparently according to the hon. Gentleman that time is now passed. He asked us to send a hopeful message to the Army. I wondered where he has been these last few weeks, and where he has managed to get that spring of hope. Surely he has not got it from the Prime Minister, and I am sure he has not got it from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot think of any Minister who has spoken from the Government Bench but has been most pessimistic. I cannot see that conditions are in any way better than when the last Estimates were introduced; indeed, they are worse. The condition of the country is immeasurably worse. Unemployment is worse. It has been longer continued, and trade is worse. Yet we are told that it is time to re-establish expenditure on the Fighting Services. Again the Territorials can go to camp. Again we can make up all those Services that had to be cut last time. It shows a very extraordinary sense of values on the part of the Government.
I entirely agree that if you are to have an Army in being you cannot allow it to deteriorate, and you have to keep it up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Yes, but that does not apply only to Army Estimates; the Government propose to continue the cuts in everything else. We can see deterioration going on visibly. We have had the figures with regard to the rejection of recruits. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is encouraging with regard to recruiting; naturally it is always encouraging to recruiting when there are unemployment and starvation. Unemployment, starvation and hard times are wonderful recruiting agents, only, unfortunately, they produce very inferior material. If you are looking at this thing from the wider point of view of defence, you will find that you are steadily going down, owing to the deterioration of the men of this country.
I was surprised therefore at that note of optimism, and I was also surprised to find that the Government are prepared to pay something like £900,000 to let the Territorials have this camp. We are told that the recruiting has fallen off. I gather that patriotic Britishers must have a camp, and that unless you give them something like a holiday-camp you can not get them to serve. You are paying £900,000 to get these people to serve, and to keep the Territorial Army in good heart, when you could not find a paltry £40,000 for the people outside, ex-service men, Reservists and the like—an extraordinary mistake in values. I am not going to say very much about the question of the camps for the Territorials, as that will be raised later, on a definite Motion on the Territorial
Army, but I must say that I can see no justification whatever for putting on that sum for Territorial camps again. I do not believe that the absence of camps would kill the Territorial Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I am surprised to hear that there is a note of dissent. Am I to understand that the Territorials are only holiday-serving soldiers, and that, unless they get a holiday-camp, they are not going to serve? I thought the Territorial was a patriotic person who made sacrifices.

Brigadier-General NATION: Anybody who has been to camp with the Territorials will know that it is not much of a holiday?

Mr. ATTLEE: I cannot settle the differences between the hon. Member and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who used the word "holiday" and stressed that point. We shall find out about it at a later stage of the Debate. As at present advised, I am prepared to take the views of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who has greater experience. I do not believe that there would be an absolute loss of -the Territorial Army if you did not have this expenditure. It is grossly wasteful at the present time, if you cannot afford expenditure on other vital services. I do not associate myself for one moment with the school of parsimony that is ruling this country, but I say, if you have to choose between one and the other, that it is quite ridiculous to choose the Territorial camps.
The next point that I would make with regard to expenditure, before dealing with certain specific points, is on the general question of Army establishments. If one looks back over the Army Estimates, one does not find very much difference year by year in the allocation of men to different services and the amount spent on them, and I am wondering whether that question is being considered. Let me take one example. At the Geneva Disarmament Conference there was a discussion about tanks. I understand that propositions were made to abolish tanks altogether, and that we suggested Amendments which would keep our tanks all right—as is generally done when anybody of authority in the Fighting Services goes to make recommendations at Geneva. I wonder whether that discussion is reflected at all in these Estimates. As far as I can gather, the Tank Corps is to be
reorganised. I should hardly have thought, if we were taking at all seriously the question of the abolition of tanks, that it would be worth while to carry on that reorganisation, and it rather suggests that the question was not taken very seriously.
Again, as regards the number of troops, one finds, as usual, that the largest body of troops are the infantry, and I wonder how far the whole question of infantry, artillery, tanks, and so forth is being considered in the light of modern warfare. I was reading the other day in a military periodical an article discussing the whole of that question. It would appear that almost all War Offices think that the next war will be like the last War. When we discussed in this House the subject of Disarmament, we had a striking speech from the Lord President of the Council. He stressed the importance of the Air Force, and we gathered from him that, whatever might happen to our brave lads overseas in the infantry, we who were keeping the home fires burning here, being over age, would be wiped out by the Air Force. There does not seem to me to be, in this series of Estimates that are presented to us, any particular recognition of the changed conditions that are likely in the event of war occurring again. Perhaps it will be said that we are not contemplating any further war, and that this is only what Mr. Hoover described as "a force insufficient for police duties within the Empire"; but I notice certain extra expenditures in the year's Estimates which are said to be due to preparations for mobilisation—Army Ordnance expenses and so forth. I should like to know whether those are merely routine preparations for mobilisation for police work within the Empire, or whether preparations are going on with a view to something larger in the way of war in the future.
I turn now to one or two points regarding the actual increase in the Estimates. I am sorry to observe that. wherever there is an increase, there seems to be an absence of notes on the pink sheets included in the Estimates. The first big increase, in connection with Territorial camps, has been explained. The next large one appears on page 187 of the Estimates—an increase in warlike stores. Guns and Carriages and Gun
Ammunition show very large increases, but there is no note as to why that is the case. When there is a decrease, we get an explanation. I should like to know what is the cause of this great increase in Guns and Carriages and Gun Ammunition. It may be merely a making up of short supplies last year, but I should like to know more details about it. Again, as regards the purchase of land, which is referred to on page 203, I note that there is an increase of £82,000, but that particular item is not mentioned in the notes. I should like to know where the land is, and what is the need for an increase.
There is a further increase of some size in regard to the Singapore defences. I should like the Minister, when he replies, to tell us what is the policy with regard to Singapore. I notice in the Navy Estimates a renewal of expenditure in regard to Singapore. I rather hesitate to speak too much on that question at the present time, but I should like to know whether we are going on with that base or not. I rather object, myself, to the way in which the Army is generally involved in expenditure on behalf of its sister Services, particularly for services for which there seems likely to be very little return. I remember that in my time we had to provide a good deal of auxiliary works of various kinds for air defence, but we have had it on the best authority, from the late Lord Privy Seal, that there is no such thing as air defence that is in the least effective. I objected at the time. I said that I did not believe very much in air defence, and I believe that many authorities at the War Office do not think there is much in it, but we were dragged in there. Now, apparently, the Singapore base is to be gone on with, and the Army is dragged in there also, to make certain defence preparations for the sister Service. I have never been in favour of the base myself. I should like some information as to the amount that is going to be expended on it, and what is actually going to be done in this present year. I see that we are going to spend £15,000.
I should also like to ask a, question about Catterick camp, which is another item involving a good deal of expenditure. I notice that, while the original Estimate providing for troops at Catterick was £1,235,000, that has now
gone up to £1,438,000. What is the reason for that increase, in view of the fall in costs; what is the total anticipated cost of the whole Catterick scheme; and when is it likely to be finished? I was there the other day, and saw as much of it as a heavy snowfall would allow. There had been a very great advance since I was there in 1924.
I should like to know whether in the course of the year there has really been a close review of the whole expenditure in these Estimates. We were told last year that the Army Estimates had been subjected to an all-over cut. I think that an all-over cut is an extraordinarily unscientific way of going to work. It may have been considered necessary when the Government were in a panic, but it is not good enough, if you really think there is a demand for economy, just to go back to what you were before. I should like to know whether the whole question is being overhauled. I raised a number of points last time, to which the Financial Secretary did not give me any reply at all. I should like to know whether consideration has been given to the question of the relative number of officers to other ranks. I raised that point last time, and I do not want to elaborate it, but in my view, owing to the superior education of the men in the ranks to-day, and the different type of warfare, the proportion of officers to men is too high. I should certainly like some information with regard to the War Office staff, which is still very high.
One finds that there is a cadre of officers, including the Regulars, the Permanent Staff, the Supplementary Reserve and the Territorials, numbering 7,640, and you have for their care 230 officers on the War Office staff, that is to say, one in 33. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily high proportion. It is no use the hon. Gentleman telling me that it was perhaps higher when I was at the War Office as Under-Secretary in 1924; that is not the point. Neither is it of any use to tell me that a similar number was approved by a previous Secretary of State, whether a Socialist or anyone else, because the House of Commons is not concerned with preserving a continuity of policy, particularly if it happens to be a continuity of a policy of mistakes, and I am far from claiming that mistakes are not made by Socialist Secretaries of State
and Under-Secretaries. I should like an answer on the merits of the question. Again, as regards staffs of commands, where I admit there has been no, increase, I am far from satisfied that we are not still overstaffed there, though certainly not as overstaffed as we were some 10 years ago.
Looking at these Estimates, and considering them, as we must, in connection with the Navy Estimates and the Air Estimates, while we may claim to have been more virtuous than any other Power, and to have brought down our Estimates, the fact remains that we have still an enormous burden of armaments. We are told that these merely represent police for the Empire. We shall hear next week the exact reason for the Air Force, and we shall be told that it is for the purpose of policing the Empire from the air; and we shall be told also that the Navy is only for police duties overseas. It seems to me to be an extremely heavy burden of police work. I should agree that the amount which we spend on the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force must depend on our policy, and that the extent to which it is possible to disarm must depend on world conditions; but I am far from satisfied that this country during the past year has really effectively pressed forward the cause of disarmament. I should be out of order if I tried to discuss the foreign policy of this country at Geneva, but I think that one must protest at the size of these Estimates, and at the increase which they show. We must remember that, owing partly to world conditions and partly to the policy of the Government, the general flow of wealth has steadily gone down and conditions are very bad. We are asked to carry these enormous sums, which we are told are an insurance. It is no good having such a heavy insurance as breaks your business. If you are going to be ruined in one way you may as well be ruined in another.
In our view there has been a failure to get adequate reductions in world armaments. That failure has been very largely caused by the fact that, whenever you come to discuss reductions of particular arms, you depend inevitably on the experts in those arms. You never have anyone going to Geneva with a clear idea of defence as a whole. Although we have a Committee of Imperial Defence—I should not underrate its work—you
have still, in effect, these three services, largely in watertight compartments, working largely with separate policies, looking out on the world and looking at possible dangers not from exactly the angle of the defence of this country, but from the angle of the potential opponents to their particular arms. By this we get a maximum of expenditure and a minimum of security.
I should like, if it were possible, some time this year if we could have a discussion on the whole question of defence and the organisation of defence. Meanwhile I must express my regret that the Minister should get up in these days and make no reference whatever to the possibility of Disarmament and that at this time, when we are told that everyone has to economise, the Government should come forward with increased Estimates for the Fighting Services. We shall oppose the Motion on those grounds. We shall not vote against the particular Vote to-night. We shall leave that for the Report stage, on which we shall raise various points of detail. But we shall oppose this Vote on the ground that in these days, when appeals are made for economy, everyone can see that these actual increases in the Army Estimates are going to have an extremely bad effect throughout the whole country.

5.19 p.m.

Captain SIDNEY HERBERT: I should like to add my tribute of praise to my hon. Friend for the businesslike, clear and, indeed, brilliant way in which he has introduced these Estimates. The fact that he was able to do it without once consulting a note rendered me for the moment a little giddy. I recollect no such prodigious speech since I saw the late Mr. Bonar Law introduce a Budget with the help of nothing but an illegible wisp of paper from his waistcoat pocket. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman who spoke last in his wish that the Financial Secretary should have made yet another of those pious aspirations towards Disarmament, which are quite useless unless you attempt to implement them. The Labour party still believes in a policy of gestures. A little of that has spread into our own party with those who deserted their party for ours. Gestures are helpful. If you take off your hat to a lady at one end of Bond Street, that may be an amiable and a helpful gesture.
If you continue down the street repeating it, you may be considered foolish. If you continue it from one end of the street to the other, you will probably find yourself in gaol. This country has done far better than make gestures as far as the Army is concerned. Of all branches of the Services, the Army is the one which has the least of which to be afraid in its policy towards Disarmament, a policy which has set an example which no country in the world has seen fit to follow.
It is not of this, however, that I wish to speak, but of a very small and humble economy which, I am afraid, has been rejected by the Army Council more than once, but which I wish to press on the Financial Secretary, an economy which, so far from militating against the efficiency of the Army, would, I think, actually add to that efficiency. I refer to the proposal to amalgamate the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich with the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. At the Royal Military College, I understand, there are less than half the cadets that it could accommodate. If to-morrow you were to march the whole of the cadets now at Woolwich to Camberley, you could put them up comfortably without adding anything except, possibly, a new building for the staff, a few more houses for married officers and a few more parade grounds and playing-fields on land that belongs to the War Department. Think of the saving that you would get in overhead charges by combining them at one spot. In the first place, you would have only one major-general instead of two. Before the War it was thought possible for an officer of the rank of colonel to become a. commandant as well at Sandhurst and at Woolwich. During the War a major-general was supposed to be able to command 20,000 men if he could get them. Since the War they think it takes two major-generals at Woolwich and Sandhurst to deal with 250 to 300 boys in each case. I do not think it would be a great stretch of such an officer's powers and abilities if he combined the opportunity of looking after 600 or 700 boys. Just as it would reduce the officers of that rank from two to one, so you could on the whole reduce the staff and the instructors generally. You could sell the site at
Woolwich for a very large sum of money. It is an ideal site for the building of factories, with both land and water transport handy. It is not an ideal site for a training college. To start with, in time of war, it is at the point of maximum vulnerability that exists in the whole country.
So far from the economic point of view. From the efficiency point of view, there is a very great deal to be said. The main objectives of the British Army differ from those of any army in the world. They are, first of all, ability to meet, in its integral units and immediately, any menace that may occur in any part of the Britsh Empire and, secondly to form a cadre from which the existing Army could be pulled up to 10 times its strength in the shortest possible space of time. To achieve the second of these objects postulates that every officer ought, on the outbreak of war, to be capable of receiving promotion at least one or two ranks higher than that in which he finds himself at that time, and that he should be eligible for receiving that promotion not only in his own unit but in another branch of the Service. Most people will agree that it was an unpleasant surprise to find how few junior regular officers in the War knew anything at all of work outside their own unit or branch of the Service. I agree that that has been a good deal ameliorated by the fact that officers now do many more courses and have much longer attachments to other units, but there still remains a certain ignorance between branches of the British Army and there still remains, regrettably, a certain amount of jealousy between those branches. If you had candidates for all branches of the Army in one training establishment, trained on the same lines, meeting each other and making friends together, a great deal of those jealousies and prejudices would be overcome. It is quite erroneous to suppose that artillery officers, engineer officers, and so on, require a, strictly specialised training because, if that were so, they would not accept, as they do, University candidates with open arms. Let us have a training which makes for much greater homogeneity in the Army, which abolishes prejudice, which gets these lads to meet each other when they are young, instead of waiting in the watertight compart-
ments of their units until they get on to some staff job after the age of 30 so that they do not really understand the work of units other than their own.
I know the difficulties of getting such a measure through. The only argument against it is the argument of sentiment. The artillery and the engineers would be very loth to give up Woolwich. The Royal Corps of Signallers have been there a very short time. They are a comparatively young force and, like sailors, they do not care, but this is not a time, when regiments with such magnificent traditions have had to be disbanded, to give too much consideration to sentiment. I, therefore, beg my right hon. Friend in the course of the next year to press this beneficial economy forward and I hope, too, that the new Chief of the Imperial General Staff, another gunner by-the-by, whose fine record shows his good judgment., will not let his sentiment as a gunner overcome his wisdom as a soldier.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office who introduced these Estimates for the very clear and interesting way in which he disclosed them to the House, and also to re-echo the feelings of sympathy which he expressed in regard to the losses which the Army sustained during the past year. We have heard much of what he has said to-day with very great satisfaction. He had much to tell us that was good with regard to the improved conditions of the housing of the troops, and those of us who represent industrial constituencies will have heard with great satisfaction of the progress that has been made in the vocational centres and of the extraordinarily fine results in placing men in occupations. We have all had cases brought to our notice in the past of men who, having left the Army with no occupation at their fingers' ends were consequently very much handicapped in obtaining work. The statement in regard to health and discipline was indeed encouraging and satisfactory.
I regret—I suppose that everybody in the House regrets—the fact that there is an increase in the Estimates, and that there should be a necessity for it. I associate myself with the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Lime-
house (Mr. Attlee), that we should discuss in this House, at an early date, the subject of co-ordinating the defence forces of this country. There are many of us who feel that there might be economy and also efficiency to be derived if that matter were thoroughly explored. The Financial Secretary intimated that some of those aspects were under consideration and that some progress had been made. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse that if we are to have a discussion in this House, he and his friends are the only people who can arrange for it. It would be for them to take steps through the usual procedure of the House to have a discussion on those particular lines.
I do not wish to discuss any matters of broad policy, for Army Estimates take me to a line of country which I am not very competent to follow. I try in my interventions in discussions to confine myself, as far as possible, to a, line of country through which I have some reasonable prospect of getting. I would draw the attention of the House—in fact my hon. Friend has already done so- -to one or two circumstances which give rise to disquiet in connection with the financial control of the War Office. The hon. Member for Lime-house referred to the total staff and personnel of the War Office. I put down a question on that subject to-day, and I received an answer that the personnel was 2,246 this year in comparison with 1,878 in 1914. That question is always put on the day upon which the Army Estimates are introduced, and I imagine that the Department will be very much surprised if the question were not put. Last year it was put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), and Members who put it always use it as a peg on which to hang some observations with regard to the staff of the War Office upon which they require some explanation. We know that the Army in 1933 is a totally different proposition in every way from what it was in 1914. I am not an authority on these matters, but probably the Army to-day is as different from the Army of 1914 as the Army of 1914 was different from the Army of Wellington. If there has been a revolution in the objectives, equipment and control of the Army, there has been no less a revolution
in office management and business control.
The fact that the personnel of the War Office stands to-day at 2,246, some 400 more than in 1914, is incredible to those who are conversant with up-to-date and first-class commercial practice. It is a thing which they find exceedingly difficult to understand. Although the character and objectives of the Army have altered, the work of the pay department and other departments remains the same. It is true that there have been additional services added to the War Office since the War, but in the bulk the character of the work is of the kind which lends itself freely to the development of mechanisation and the modern practice carried out in all large and up-to-date commercial institutions. I put another question to my hon. Friend to-day on the subject of the mechanisation of one par titular department, and he told me that the number of adding and printing machines and the like employed was 75 I also asked whether the mechanisation was complete, and looking at the answer which I have since received I find that no answer was given to that question. Indeed, that was not necessary because the number of machines given indicated quite clearly that the process of mechanisation had not in fact been carried out.
There are many Government Departments which are fully mechanised in regard to their office work. I will instance the Post Office Savings Bank, which is a model to other banking institutions and to other Government Departments. It is recognised as being the finest centre of work of its kind in the country. I ask my hon. Friend—he may not be able to give the answer offhand—whether the War Office methods have been compared, as far as they are comparable—and they are comparable in some respects—with the Post Office Savings Bank, and whether, if a comparison has been made, the output in the relative Departments of the War Office is equivalent to that which obtains in the Post Office, or is at all comparable with it? From the knowledge which an outsider possesses, one cannot but think that there must be scope for a very considerable reduction in some of the items which appear in these Estimates.
I wish to refer to another matter which is profoundly disturbing. The Financial Secretary in introducing the Estimates made reference to the further experiments which have been carried out with regard to certain types of uniform in order to see whether or not the factory at Pimlico might be utilised for carrying out that particular Army manufacture. He said that as a result of experiments it had, unfortunately, been found that they were unable to utilise the factory for that particular object. It was found that the outside contractors, or whoever competed in the business, were able to do the work more economically than it could be done in the factory. The whole history of the factory in recent years has been profoundly disturbing. On 13th May, 1930, the operations of the. Office and the operations of this factory in particular were under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) being in the Chair.
The position of the factory—its efficiency, and economy in relation to outside contractors—was under discussion, and the general tenour of the evidence which was given before the Committee by those who were representing the War Office on that occasion was that the factory was highly efficient and was a very profitable venture being carried on by the War Office. In fact, so glowing was the evidence that Members of the House who were present were left in doubt as to why the work was not extended or why such work was not carried on in regard to other supplies for the Army. The answers given in that regard were that if the sites were available, or if it were not for capital expenditure, the Department would only be too pleased to extend that particular operation. Within 18 months a decision was taken to close this highly prosperous, successful and economic factory, or, at all events, the decision was taken to close it down in part. We have heard to-day that it has been closed down altogether, and that very substantial savings have been effected by doing it.
During the course of the Estimates last year the matter was raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite who urged upon my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary the necessity of keeping on the factory if he could possibly do so on the ground of the number of
men and women who would otherwise have to be discharged and have difficulty in finding occupations elsewhere. My hon. Friend was by no means unsympathetic to that aspect of the case. He made it clear in the course of the Debate that if the economy which would result from the closing had not been very considerable, they would have been exceedingly reluctant—in fact they were reluctant—to take the step which they had done. This is the disturbing aspect of the case. Here is a factory and business which have been carried on ever since the Crimean War. In May of one year it is stated to be prosperous and to be an economy and saving a large sum of money to the nation, and within 18 months it is to be closed down, and a saving of £25,000 or £50,000 a year is to be made by so doing.
I am not suggesting that the factory has always been losing money. It would be an unreasonable suggestion to make, but who is to know how long it has been losing money? I cannot refrain from saying that procedure of this kind is disturbing and disquieting, and a reflection upon the efficiency of the costing department, and upon the efficiency and capacity of the contracting department or whoever is responsible for checking off these matters against outside competitors. It is more than that. It now calls into question the efficiency and the financial control of the War Office which allows a distinguished, able and trusted public servant to give evidence as to the prosperity of the factory, when, in fact, the actual reverse appears to be the case. I have brought this matter and other matters before the House because it is of the utmost importance, when cuts are being made and everybody is suffering, and when reductions are being made here and there which are distasteful, not only to those who have to undergo them, but to many of us in this House, that we should be satisfied that there is no inefficiency in any quarter whatever, and that no money has been spent which is unnecessary. I am by no means satisfied in this particular case that there is not scope for a very considerable reduction in expenditure.
There are many operations which are carried on by the War Office which are directly comparable with large-scale operations carried on outside. For example, I should like to ask whether
the cost of the repair of motor vehicles compares with the cost incurred by the London General Omnibus Company and other concerns which have similar operations to carry out? It is most important that we should have the best checks available on all these substantial operations. The hon. Member for Limehouse made reference to the fact that there was no allusion to Disarmament in the speech of the Financial Secretary. I am always willing and anxious to take part in a discussion, inside or outside the House, for the purpose of bringing about disarmament within the limit that it is possible to secure it, but I do not feel that on these Estimates, when we are concerned primarily with the efficiency and the conduct of the Army, and when we are concerned to hear from the responsible Minister an account of the proceedings during the past year and anticipations for the future, that we should widen the discussion by introducing a matter which can be more appropriately discussed on other occasions.
In recent years, since the War, there have been a number of inquiries into affairs of the War Office, in connection with which the assistance of business men and others has been sought. I do not suppose that the Army Estimates are ever discussed in this House without someone making a suggestion that the time has come for another investigation of that kind. The Financial Secretary pointed out that there have been seven inquiries of that sort since the War. I think it is high time that the War Office should have the assistance of a committee competent to discuss and to advise on these particular matters, and other matters, and I would urge that the Minister should give this matter serious consideration. It is important when a, committee has been established and it makes its report it should not, as usually happens, disappear into thin air. If a committee is set up, I suggest that they should be kept in being, because it has been the rule that committees which have come to the assistance of Departments in the past have dissolved after they have reported. Difficulties often arise subsequently, their suggestions are not carried out and their efforts are very largely wasted.
The Esher Commission is a case in point in regard to the War Office. They
made a very large number of highly valuable suggestions but they were not carried out. It may be that there were substantial reasons why they should not be carried out. If, however, a committee is appointed in order to bring the highest experience from outside to bear upon these questions, I suggest that it should be kept in being, and that if difficulties arise in the carrying out of any of its suggestions the chairman, or some other member of the committee, should have an opportunity of discussing them with the Department, because it is only in that way that the full results of the good work of these men can be realised. The matters to which I have referred arc of great substance. I claim that there is great scope still for reduction of expenditure. within the War Office, without any necessity for any inefficiency whatsoever.

5.50 P.m.

Mr. TINKER: Some reference has been made to Army dress, in which connection I have vivid recollections of the time when I had to wear it. I remember the irksomeness of having to wear it under certain conditions. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reform Army dress, he might consider what has been done in regard to the wearing of puttees over long trousers. I have seen soldiers since the War and I gather that they still have to fold the puttee over part of the trouser. There was always a difficulty in fixing the puttee, when you had to wear long trousers. Since the War, however, there has been alteration in this respect. Another point to which I would draw attention is the collar of the tunic. The private has to wear a tunic with a very stiff collar. If he appears on parade with the collar loose, he is picked out as being careless and he is "in" for it. The officer has a different kind of dress. He has a looser collar. When the dress is reformed I would like those who are reforming it to remember the time when they wore uniform, particularly with the stiff collar of the tunic, on a warm day. I would ask them also to remember how keen the Army is on having the men up to the mark when they have to be examined on parade. These little, irksome things give rise to disgust on the part of the men when they have to put up with them.
I notice from the memorandum that the discipline of the Army has been improved. The discipline will certainly be improved if these little, pettifogging grievances are removed and the men are treated as ordinary decent human beings in regard to things that can very well be abolished. There are very few soldiers who when they join up do not want to do their best, and they would do their best if these grievances were removed. I hope the Financial Secretary will remember his early days, because he will have had experience, as I had, of discomfort in regard to stiff collars. I hope that he will give the men a little more freedom at the neck when they are on parade. Mention has been made of the health of the Army. I notice that the number of rejections for entrance into the Army has increased from 335 to 370 per thousand. Is that because the standard is higher or because there has been deterioration in the physical standard of our manhood? Either the standard of efficiency has gone higher or the efficiency of our manhood has gone lower. In regard to vocational training, I notice that 2,203 men passed through the training centres in 1932, compared with 2,249 in 1931. Seeing that this work is so useful in regard to the soldier when he returns to civilian life, is it possible for the Financial Secretary to tell us why there has been a reduction in numbers? Is it because of any difficulty with the men, or because of something that they dislike?
In regard to expenditure, this is the first time since 1922 that there has been an increase asked for on the Army Vote. None of us want an inefficient Army. It must be efficient, but it is very hard for us on these benches, when we are fighting for a reduction of the Army, to defend an increase in expenditure. We have always considered that there should be progressive reduction of expenditure with regard to the curtailment of the Army, and it is a matter of dismay to find that this year there is to be an increase of £1,462,000. That requires more explanation than the Financial Secretary has given. He told us that it was due to the Territorials going to training camps this year. He asked us on these benches if we would help him in securing economy. In that regard I should like to make a few suggestions.
I find that the Cavalry, including the Household Cavalry, is estimated this year to cost £605,000. That is a slight decrease. I questioned the Financial Secretary to-day as to the relative cost of the Household Cavalry, because in working out the cost of the 13 Cavalry regiments I find that the cost of each regiment is £46,538. In reply to my question the Financial Secretary told me that the cost of the two Household Cavalry regiments is £158,000, so that each one costs one and a-half times more than an ordinary Cavalry regiment. How does that increased cost for the Household Cavalry regiment come in? Is it because there are more officers for the Household Cavalry, or because they have to wear certain adornments over and above other Cavalry regiments when they are on parade in London? If that is so, it ought to be altered. Anyone who goes from this House to Hyde Park will notice the changing of the Guard, and I take it that the Household Cavalry supply the soldiers for that ceremonial. What benefit is derived from that? This is a time for efficiency and not a time for show. We do not want these showmen any longer. I do not think that it appeals to recruits. If the Financial Secretary is out for economy this is one of the matters with which he should deal. He should go in for efficiency in the Army rather than have showmen, which seems to be the purpose of the Household Cavalry.
The next point is in regard to the coordination of the Services. We have an example of the way in which we could dispense with certain heads of the Army. We have a Secretary of State for War in the other House, and we have the second member of the War Office in the other House. We have only one representative of the War Office in this House, the Financial Secretary, and I think that everyone who heard his speech will agree that he has been able to carry out his work very well. He has explained the work of his Department to the House in a manner which could not have been bettered; indeed, I question if it could have been equaled by anyone else. I want to know whether there is any need for the two gentlemen in the other Chamber. The House of Commons stands for efficiency. If those two gentlemen are really of use, and not, like the Household' Cavalry, out for show, then they
ought to be here. If they are not required here, they are not required anywhere, and we could do away with them and bring about a little saving in that direction, which would be very useful in a time when there is the direst need for economy.
The time has come when the House of Commons should face the co-ordination of the Services. We must have a strong defence force at a time like the present—no one believes that this nation should disarm as long as other nations are arming—but while we want to feel that our defence force is efficient, we must also economise as much as possible. Each section of the Service does all it can to get the last penny from the Treasury. There is a great need for co-ordination under one head. It would be a saving in money for the nation, and would give us a more efficient defence force than we have at present. I put these points to the Financial Secretary in a spirit of helpfulness, and not in any way as an attempt to decry the Army, Navy or Air Force, recognising, as we do, that they are needful. But we must do all we can to prove to the citizens of this country that we are trying to economise. It is very hard to be deliberating one day upon a Motion such as that which was moved yesterday on poverty by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the next day to deal with some branches of the services, costing money, for which we think there is no need. It should be our endeavour to provide an efficient defence force, and at the same time to economise-as much as possible.

6.2 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I should' like to join in the congratulations to the Financial Secretary on his presentation of the Estimates. There is no need for any apology on his part for the increase this year. It is obvious that last year economies were made—and rightly made —which could not be renewed in subsequent years. The increase this year, which is largely due to the better training of the Territorial Force and the replacement of necessary stores, is entirely justified. I could not follow the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) in his statement that there is no necessity for the Territorials to go to camp this year; that it would not affect their efficiency. Of course it would. Men join
the Territorial Army because they think it is the patriotic thing to do and, partly, to become efficient; and if they do not go to camp how can they become efficient? It was a doubtful point last year whether the camps should be abolished, but they were, and the men accepted the decision willingly. If it had been repeated this year it would have had a permanently adverse effect on the future of the Territorial Army.
There are one or two points which I should like to bring before the notice of the Financial Secretary. There is the question of horses in the Army, not necessary for the cavalry. It was delightful to hear the hon. Member's remarks on the subject of the Household Cavalry, which no doubt will be answered by some hon. Member who has been in the Household Cavalry. But I am much perturbed by the condition of the horse-breeding industry in this country. I do not know what is the future of the mechanization of the Army, whether it will be increased, or whether it is satisfactory or not; but, whatever happens, there must be in all branches of the Army a supply of horses in time of war, and I much regret the decision to do away with the light horse-breeding subsidy. It was only a very small amount. I agree that small amounts in the aggregate amount to a great deal, and one must not be too ready to criticise small economies. But the horse-breeding industry in this country is in a serious condition. There is no doubt that owing to a lack of demand in ordinary civil life there would be, if war happened to be declared, a shortage of horses.
I should like to ask what the position is for collecting horses for the Army in the event of mobilisation. Is it the same system that was in force in 1914, when each area was allotted certain powers to commandeer horses at fixed prices from local farmers, or is there some fresh scheme? I feel that any Expeditionary Force sent out now for European purposes, or for purposes elsewhere, would find great difficulty not only in collecting a sufficient number of horses but in sending out reinforcements. There is one small economy that I should like to suggest. I think that troops are moved about the country too much. The moves from one station to another of
cavalry and infantry are fairly frequent. It is said that we cannot have detached units for too long because they lose efficiency in not being trained in larger units; but I think some change should be made. The Household Cavalry move every year from London to Windsor and from Windsor to London. That change is, I think, too frequent, and if they moved every other year it would be more useful and economical. Also units stationed at Edinburgh and York are moved to Tidworth and Aldershot after short intervals of time. Units are constantly transferred from one part of the country to another at great public expense, and at great cost to the officers and their families. I know the argument is that it is essential to train them in large units, but I think in regard to cavalry, at any rate, that that is a complete mistake. The duties of cavalry in a future war will be essentially those of mounted infantry, they will be used not in organisations of cavalry but very largely as troops or squadrons attached to infantry brigades. It would be much more useful, therefore, if cavalry training was directed more on these lines.
I support the request made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Captain Herbert) for the amalgamation of Woolwich and Sandhurst. There should be far more co-ordination between the different units of the Army, there should not be the feeling that, I am a cavalry officer, or I am an artillery officer, or I am a foot soldier, and that other people, although part of the same organisation, are almost in a different world. If from the beginning of their military training officers were brought together and trained together in one place like Sandhurst, it would add to the efficiency of the individual officer. But, apart from that, in these days of necessary economy it is a sheer waste of public money to maintain the establishment at Woolwich. The War Department own a large tract of land around Sandhurst, almost abutting on the Aldershot Command training ground, and there is plenty of room in Sandhurst to accommodate the whole of the cadets and officers who are at present at Woolwich. Woolwich is not a suitable place for training nowadays. It is an exceedingly valuable bit of land which could be sold, and the sale of the land would more than cover the increase in the Esti-
mates this year. I ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind what has been said, because this is an economy which might well be effected without any loss of efficiency; in fact, it would lead to increased efficiency and put money into the at present comparatively empty pockets of the War Office or the Exchequer.
I should also like to know the position as regards the Albany Street barracks recently evacuated by the Household Cavalry, who are now at Knightsbridge. Are they to be sold, or is the lease coming to an end? A good many people would like to know the position. As regards clothing, I ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind another aspect of that question. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that great consideration should be given to the comfort of the soldier, especially the foot soldier. I have been in the ranks myself and I agree that it is not a comfortable clothing to wear, but if improvements are going to be made, let them be made in some reasonable spirit, because there is nothing the individual soldier dislikes so much, especially the young men as being made a laughing stock for people when they look at them. From what I saw in the picture papers these unfortunate young men seem to be more like Nervo and Knox in a crazy month than ordinary soldiers.

6.12 p.m.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: It is rather refreshing to some us to be discussing something which really matters—at all events, something which matters a great deal more than 95 per cent. of what we generally debate in this House. We are discussing the defences of this country and the Empire. After all, it is the duty of the Government to govern, to steer the ship of State to peace and safety, so that the nation can get on with its work and the individual can live his life in freedom and liberty; although freedom, it must be confessed, has been, to a great extent, circumscribed and curtailed by many of our interfering and unwanted laws. The Financial Secretary said truly that the army of ours is a very small army. It has become a platitude to call it a police force. He has also truly said that with such a small army it is absolutely essential that it should be thoroughly well-trained, well-armed and well-equipped. Last year the Army
was shorn of its training—the Regular Army to a great extent and the Territorial Army almost entirely. It would have been criminal if that had been allowed to continue and, therefore, we are all pleased to hear that training is to be restored.
The Army should be thoroughly well armed. I have seen in the Press recently some suggestion of a new rifle, a new bayonet and a new revolver. I do not know what truth there is in this; we have not heard anything about it, and we do not want to ask for any information which should be withheld. We can only hope that when these arms have to be renewed they will be satisfactory. But the re-arming of the Army should be done as quickly as possible so that everyone can be well trained in the use of these new arms at once. There is also in the Estimates mention of the new light automatic machine gun. That has been many years coming about, and I see that this year there will probably be a decision taken. I hope that whatever form of new machine gun is decided upon, it will be issued rapidly, so that the men can train with it and be ready in time of war. There is one part of our armament in which I think we are very much behind-hand, and that is the anti-tank gun. I believe that in manoeuvres the anti-tank gun is represented by a green flag. The sooner that green flag is taken away and the proper anti-tank gun put in its place, the better. One of the most important things that we can attend to at the moment is to have an anti-tank gun chosen and issued to the troops.
Last year I drew the attention of the Financial Secretary to the question of the employment of ex-soldiers. I am very pleased to see this year that the vocational training centres have done their duty well and have got employment for some three quarters of the men whom have passed through their hands. Each year a Member generally gets up and urges the Government to see that a man who joins the defence forces of the-Crown and then goes on to Governmental civil employment should be allowed to treat his service as continuous for pension. I have not heard it mentioned to-day. None the less it is mentioned pretty regularly and just as regularly turned down on the score of expense. The Government must feel that they have great responsibility for all the men who
have not been able to go to one of these vocational training centres. If the Government will not make their service continuous they must feel that they ought to do something for them. There are some 30,000 men who leave the Colours every year for the Reserve and are thrown on the labour market, and a very small proportion of these go to vocational training centres.
There are many voluntary organisations which deal with these men. The principal is the National Association for the Employment of Ex-Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen. This Association is officially used by the War Office and the Navy and the Air Force, and it is through the Association that men get places in Government employ. The Association is mostly kept up by voluntary subscriptions, but the Government do give a subsidy to it, and a very small one—£1,950, of which £1,250 is from the Army, £500 from the Navy and £200 from the Air Force. I think the Government might do a great deal more to support the National Association. If they gave it a little more money it could have much better offices—the offices are very poor now and not half good enough—and it might extend its beneficent sway a great deal further.
In 1906 there was a Departmental Committee set up under Sir Edward Ward, which recommended that the Government should give no less than £16,000 to this Association annually. That proposal has never gone any further. Considering what responsibility the Government have for the ex-service man, I think they might give a little more to the Association than the £1,950 from the three Services. I have said that there are certain other voluntary associations. I am sorry to think that many of these associations have a sort of perverted esprit de corps and refuse to support the National Association. I regret that my old branch of the Service is one of the offenders. If only the Government would do a little more for the National Association that might induce these voluntary associations to see the error of their ways and to be more inclined to come in. I hope that the War Office will use their influence in trying to make the National Association a big thing, so that it can do a great deal better work than it has done up to now.
I will deal only briefly with the question of the merging of Sandhurst and Woolwich. The case has been very ably put already. I have taken some trouble to inquire amongst serving officers, and I have found amongst the thinking ones an opinion that the merging would be a good thing. I will not give the reasons, for they have been stated so well already. But I, who am very conservative with regard to the Army and all its institutions, believe that this is one of those very rare cases where it is possible to combine economy with efficiency.
I will mention one small point which may bring a smile to the faces of some people, but in a voluntary Army like ours small points do count. That is the question of restoring the lowest grade title to officers in the cavalry and infantry—restoring the old title of cornet and ensign. It was in 1871 that the purchase of commissions was abolished. There was an Army Order issued towards the end of that year abolishing the titles of cornet and ensign. The lowest grades were altered to the title of sub-lieutenant and the conditions of that grade were altered. The sub-lieutenant was really an officer on probation for three years. He went to his regiment for one year and then went on to Sandhurst, and, having passed a professional examination, he went back to his regiment and became a full-blooded lieutenant. About six years after that the title of sub-lieutenant was abolished, partly because it would be mixed up with the rank in the Navy, and the title of second-lieutenant was introduced. In 1881 the title of second-lieutenant was abolished, and all second-lieutenants were converted into first-lieutenants. I imagine that the title was abolished because no one liked the title of second-lieutenant. Curiously enough, in 1887 second-lieutenants were reintroduced and they have remained ever since. This is a very small point, I admit, but cannot we imagine that an officer on joining would swell out his chest a little more if he were a cornet of horse instead of a second-lieutenant, and would he not prefer to be called an ensign when he joined the infantry instead of being called a second-lieutenant?
On one point I must congratulate the Financial Secretary, and that is that there has been no tampering with the cavalry, no amalgamation, no condensa-
tion, no tinkering of any sort. As an old cavalry soldier I say that that is very satisfactory, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), whom we are all delighted to hear. Every year he denounces the cavalry, though I am glad to think that his words fall on deaf ears. I know he very much enjoys saying these things.

Mr. TINKER: I shall succeed yet.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: And that's that. One thing which is very satisfactory is that the authorities feel that the day of the cavalry is not done. In fact, it is there just as much as ever. Cavalry to-day can be of use at the beginning of the fight and at the end. It can take advantage of success and reap victory in due course. The disorganised infantry will still feel panicky fear when they hear that the cavalry is once more upon them. The cavalry will be able to come into their own when mechanised vehicles have all broken down, as they did two years ago at manoeuvres, and when possibly the petrol dumps are all exploded. The cavalry will be useful again in advance and retreat. A great many people do not realise what the cavalry did in the great retreat of 1918. They were used on every critical occasion to support the line wherever it was broken, to fill the gaps, and by their mobility they were able to turn a very bad situation into a good one.
One other point I must mention about the cavalry is with regard to their horses. A cavalry regiment has only 237 troop horses. When it is realised that at least 5 per cent. are probably in the sick lines, that some 10 per cent. should be put clown as remounts and a large percentage for training recruits in riding school, it can be well imagined that when the colonel likes to see his regiment on parade he will not see very many there. In these days, when horses are getting scarce and when it is important to get horses suddenly in time of war, it is more than ever necessary that a regiment should be well mounted and comparatively up to strength. It should certainly have more than 237 troop horses.

6.30 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: I listened with a great interest and a good deal of relief to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Those of
us who have been brought up in one or other of the Fighting Services have passed through a period of considerable anxiety. We have seen our land, sea and air forces reduced to the lowest possible limits, and deprived of their normal training, while, at the same time, no other nation has followed our example. Indeed, some have become rather more aggressive, and I might almost say bellicose. We have shown by our example our genuine desire for peace. We have done our utmost at Geneva and elsewhere and we have reduced our forces in every direction. This policy has not, however, brought the results for which we had hoped. Indeed, by some nations it has been looked upon as a weakness, and I make bold to say that, if we had not taken our troops from Iraq and Aden, we should not have had the difficulties which we have just encountered in regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Concession.
When the Estimates were presented last year the Secretary of State said in his accompanying Memorandum that the enormous cuts of that time could not be repeated in future years. I must say that, as a new Member, I thought he was rather optimistic, because I have had a little experiesce in regard to handing money back to the Treasury. It is very easy to do that, but it is very hard to get it out again. Therefore, when I saw in this year's Estimates that he had got back nearly £1,500,000, I felt like extending to him my heartiest congratulations. I still think that the amount of money that this country spends on its fighting forces is too high. It is more than we can really afford. At the same time, as long as we maintain the organisation and administration that we do maintain, I do not see much prospect of reducing that amount in the near future. With regard to the distribution of the £1,500,000 I think the Army Council have allotted it in the best possible manner for the proficiency of the Army that we have. I observe considerable increases in votes for training and for pay. I think that is probably because it is hoped that there will be a better recruiting year. The sum under the head of training as we have heard is mainly for the training itself, but there are also stores and barracks. At the same time I notice in the Estimate considerable further savings this year. There is something like
£66,000 less for movements, something like £100,000 less for clothing, and a reduction also in the non-effective Vote. I was particularly glad to see the reduction in the amount for movement. Last year I strongly represented that this was an item on which a good deal of saving could be made without loss of efficiency.
I pass to the question of strength. The Secretary of State says in his Memorandum that, inclusive of India, the deficiency is only 5,000 men. I think that is a little misleading to those who have not studied the question closely and are not familiar with the form of this large volume of Estimates. The actual deficiency, exclusive of India, is nearly 10,000, and the deficiency at home alone, according to the figures given to me by the Financial Secretary recently, is about 5,400. But it is when we take the whole of the land forces together that we get a really serious picture of the situation. As I have said, the deficiency in the Regular Army is about 5,400; in the Army Reserve it is about 1,800; in the Supplementary Reserve it is 5,000, and in the Territorial Army, according to the figures given by the Financial Secretary a week ago, it is about 44,000. When we add these together we see that the total shortage at home is no less than 55,000 men and that represents a corps strength of five infantry divisions. When it is looked at in that light, I think, the House will realise how weak we are at home.
I was glad to see that mechanisation is proceeding, and, with regard to the brigade which, it was reported in the Press, was being de-mechanised, I am glad to have the assurance that that does not mean a change of policy in regard to mechanisation. I was particularly glad to see that, for the first time, this year it is intended that mechanisation shall be extended to the Territorials, and the War Office are actually taking in hand the preparation of estimates for the divisional units of the Territorial Army. I think it is a very wise move and a very happy inspiration to hand over the coast defences to the Territorials. It gives them more work of a serious nature at home and at the same time it releases a number of regular infantry and artillery for more active employment and service oversea.
In regard to the item for movement, which, as I say, has been reduced by about £66,000, I still think that there is a possibility here for further reduction. I see in the orders for changing of stations this year that no fewer than six cavalry regiments, two brigades of artillery, eight battalions of Guards, and 14 battalions of infantry, will be changing stations in the United Kingdom. We know the old argument that this is done for training purposes and that some places are particularly bad from the training point of view. But exactly what is to be gained, for example, by moving the 2nd Dorsets from Portland to Dover, and the 1st Battalion of the Royal Sussex from Dover to Devonport? The training facilities, or rather lack of facilities, at these three stations—because they are pretty indifferent—can be of no advantage to these regiments. I think something might be done in the way of replacing regiments, which vacate barracks in this country to go abroad, by the regiments which come home from abroad—that the homecoming regiment should go into the barracks so vacated, leaving at peace, those regiments already established in this country. It has been well pointed out already that continual changing of stations is most disturbing, particularly to young married soldiers and officers. With regard to the item of £115,000 for land purchase, under present conditions of stringency and with constantly diminishing forces, it does not seem to be an appropriate time to buy extra land. I have no doubt there is a very good reason for this item, but that reason does not appear on the Estimates, and I would like to know what it is.
Coming to the question of training, I think everybody will agree that it is the most important item in these Estimates. I am glad to see that the Regular Army is going to be trained again, also that the Territorial forces, the Supplementary Reserve and the Officers Training Corps are to have their camps. I wish to know whether there are to be camps for the cadet units this year. There is no mention of that item but I think these small units deserve attention and encouragement. I suppose it is too much to hope that there is any prospect that they will get their grant of 4s. per cadet by going to camp, but I trust that matter is not being lost sight of by the War Office. I observe that the number of units has
diminished since 1931. There are about eight fewer cadet units, but the total strength has increased by about 1,500, and that is most creditable in the difficult circumstances in which they work. The private members economy report has been touched upon already and I do not wish to elaborate that point.
As regards Sandhurst and Woolwich, I was at Woolwich myself, and all I know about military affairs I learnt there, but in spite of that fact, I agree that Woolwich is no longer suitable for training officers. It is an enormous town and the Academy is entirely surrounded by houses. The places where, when I was a cadet, we did exercises and were instructed in topography and tactics and so on, are now built over completely and it is unsuitable for any kind of military work. I think it would be a considerable advantage to the Army as a whole if all officers coming into the Service got the rudiments of their military training at the same place. We should then have an esprit d'armée instead of the esprit de corps which we have at present and I think that would be all to the good. It has been said that there is plenty of room at Sandhurst and, as regards the specialist and technical teaching necessary for artillery engineers and signals, that could all be done after the officer joined his regiment. He could then go to the special technical schools which now exist.
I want now to say something which, I am afraid, will not please a goad many senior officers, but will, I think, give fresh heart and encouragement to those coming on in the lower ranks. I think that our Army is top-heavy in the senior ranks. There are too many generals and colonels. A system which allows no fewer than 30 generals and 50 colonels to be placed on half-pay and kept in unemployment for anything up to three years in the case of generals, and five years or more in the case of colonels, cannot make for efficiency. I know the answer will be that we must keep the best men, that we cannot let them go on retired pay, that we must keep them on ice, as it were, until suitable vacancies can be found for them. Well, we know what it is to keep things on the ice, and even generals and colonels are not exceptions to the rule. Things that are kept on ice do not remain fresh for long, and in the case of human beings, if they are
kept on ice too long, they take to gardening or chicken farming; and then, if they are called back to command a division or possibly a higher post, I think they have probably suffered a good deal from their enforced idleness.
I know it will hurt a good many people, but I say it with all earnestness and in all seriousness. I would like to see the half-pay done away with entirely, or at any rate the establishment of half-pay officers very considerably reduced. It would encourage all those who are coming along lower down, and it would give a more normal rate of promotion. I would also like to see the rank of full general abolished. There is no appointment and there is no command suitable for an officer of that rank in peace time. Every appointment or every command that exists in peace time can be held by a lieutenant-general. The members of the Army Council need not be higher than lieutenant-generals according to the present rule, and so I think that that would make for a better flow of promotion and be cheaper as well.
I would like now to say something about anomalies that have taken place within recent years. I know of a lieutenant-general, a most distinguished officer, who held command of a division in the War and subsequently an independent command. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, he was kept on half-pay for three years, and finally he was retired. I should like to know why this officer was promoted at all to the rank of lieutenant-general, if he was to be kept on half-pay and not used. He was a young man, he could not look for any other employment, and now he is out of a job. I would not have minded so much but that he originally came from the Dominions, and I will leave it at that.
I know of three colonels—I will not mention any names—one of whom has had every decoration for valour in the field, the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Order, and everything else he could possibly have in that way. He has been to the Staff College, he has commanded a brigade in the War, he was aide-de-camp to the King, he arrived at the top of the colonels' list, he was kept on half-pay, and finally retired.' He had every qualification that an officer could have, yet he was not promoted. I know
of another one, also a V.C., who was wounded 11 times in the War. He also commanded a brigade in the War, and he was one of the most gallant men I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. He was not given a command after the War, but he was given a post of comparatively small importance. Various openings occurred which were suitable for him, but he was not employed, and in disgust he left the Army.
At the present time, at the top of the colonels' list, there is an officer, who also won the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order, who was an aide-de-camp to the King, and who commanded a brigade in the War. His name is, I think, a household word, especially in London. He has been on half-pay for five years, and be is still young enough to remain on for I do not know how much longer. These are not encouraging examples to the fine young fellows who are working hard in the Army and trying to get on in their profession, and I think that a system that allows that sort of thing to happen should be changed in some way.
With regard to promotion generally, promotion for junior officers, from lieutenant-colonels downwards, is working very irregularly and is causing a great deal of heart-burning. I would like to mention, in passing, a senior colonel in the Artillery who has 29 years' service, whereas in the Grenadier Guards a senior colonel has only got 20. Among the majors in the Artillery, a junior major has 19 years' service; in the Engineers he has 17, and in the Grenadier Guards only 14. As regards lieutenants, there are senior subalterns in the Army with as much as 17 years' service, whereas in some regiments the senior subaltern has only 10 years' service. During the War, as we all know, we had generals of 30, and here we have got old men of about 40 who are still subalterns. In the Artillery, I understand, there are over 100 supernumerary captains.
Surely something can be done to regulate the flow of promotion throughout the Army. I asked in this House, about a fortnight ago, I think, whether any scheme for regulating the promotion of officers throughout the Army was in
contemplation, and I was told that the Army Council was not considering any scheme, but that it was offering transfers to subalterns and captains from the Artillery to the Cavalry. That is a very poor compensation to an officer who has been brought up in the Artillery. It is like taking a man out of his own family and putting him in another family which does not talk the same language; also, there are not many officers who can afford to change into the Cavalry. I chink something ought to be done About this, and I believe it is possible that s.-,me thing could be done. I would earnestly ask the Financial Secretary if he will consider this matter. I will say no more about the Economy Committee's report; I will just leave it at that.
I want, in conclusion, to mention one more subject on which I feel very strongly. In these last few days we have had a thing happen in this country which, I think, has no parallel in our history. I mean, of course, the resolution that was passed by some young men at one of our seats of learning. It is said by some people that we must not take them seriously, that it is just a passing phase and does not mean anything, And that they are not thinkers. I am afraid I cannot accept that view. I think that if this is allowed to go on and not checked, it will do an infinitude of harm. The fact that any Englishman, of any age, should allow it to go out to the world that on no condition would he fight for his country or for our King is a thing that men and women throughout the Empire will regard with horror and Almost with shame. What their parents or those responsible for their education must be thinking, I can only leave to the imagination.
Compare this miserable picture with the fine young fellows who go into the officers' training corps and the cadet units. These young men do not want to fight, they do not want war any more than the most ardent pacifist wants it, but I take it that if danger were to come to this country again they want to be prepared to do their utmost. They would serve their country with their bodies, and, if need be, with their lives. As to these other young men, I cannot believe that if the hour of danger were to strike again, every young man throughout the Empire would not come, as they did
before, for the protection of our country and our people.
Lastly, we do not want a big Army, we do not want an aggressive Army, but we do want the minimum Army that is required for the protection of these snores and of our oversea Dominions. It is for the Army Council to advise the Government as regards the size of that Army and the minimum size that we require; it is the duty of the Army Council to see that that Army is efficiently trained and ready to proceed to any part of the world; and it is for this House to pro vide the money for that Army.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: A just tribute has been paid to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office for his colourful treatment of his subject this afternoon. That, of course, is the duty of the representative of the War Office who is asking for something like £38,000,000 in times like these; and bright as were his colours, which, as has been pointed out, were a considerable relief from the mechanical statements with which we are familiar, they did not blind us to the fact that the hon. Gentleman was asking for something like £1,500,000 increase upon last year's Estimates. The Minister said that that was necessary to keep up the efficiency of the Army. Everybody agrees with the need for efficiency, but, after all, efficiency can be relative. I should say that the Army, with the means at its disposal now, and for its own purposes, was never more efficient than it is to-day. Whether you take the side of gunnery, or transport, or on whatever side you touch the Regular Army, I should say it was never more efficient and more powerful for destructive purposes than it is to-day, even with its reduced Estimates.
As I say, the question of efficiency is only relative. The question is, Have we to increase expenditure on the Army for the efficient production of soldiers and thereby decrease the possible efficiency of the citizens I When we are discussing these Estimates it is necessary to keep the mind as a whole upon what we do. One of the points that is regularly put from this Box and from that Box is the need for co-coordinating the Services, for considering the whole of the police services with a view to their work, to their objects, and to their cost. That is quite
true, but as I have sat here over the years I have always thought the real need for to co-ordinate in our minds the whole of the Services, civil and fighting, and give a due balance to all concerned. Now mark the fact that £22,500,000 has been taken from the unemployed. Cuts have gone on in every direction. There has not been a single attempt to restore any of these cuts, except in a slight way upon which I will not touch at present.
I was rather startled to hear the hon. Gentleman state that this £1,500,000 increase was a restoration of the cuts. That is a very strange point of view. If that is considered as a restoring of cuts by the Government, it really explains the point of view of the Government in dealing with the whole of the Civil Services, as well as with the Military arid Naval Services. What gripped the House today was that the hon. Gentleman in his statement gave first place to the personnel, the human side of the Army. One of the things which has always struck me—and herein, I think, really lies the success of the hon. Gentleman to-day, as well as last year—is that he does put the human side first. He deals in a colourful way with the men, and that is really the attitude of those concerned in running armies. I sometimes wish I could get ex-Regular officers in this House to apply the same standards to civilian affairs as to Army affairs. If they did they would be more revolutionary than some of the extreme Socialists in this country.
They demand a standard for the man; they must be properly fed. I wish every citizen was as decently fed as the average soldier. An officer who did not see to the feeding of his men would feel i1.3 was guilty of a real dereliction of duty. The Regular officer regards matters of that description as being matters of conscience. As we are told, rightly, to look after our horses before ourselves, so the Regular officer is very insistent upon looking after his men. As to accommodation, it is true that in recent years some of the accommodation has not been quite up-to-date. No one regrets expenditure for the proper accommodation of soldiers, but it is really much higher, rough-and-ready as it is, than the accommodation of great masses of our citizens to-day.
Then there is the question of clothing. Here I wish to join issue- with the hon.
Gentleman regarding the abandonment of the Pimlico factory. I know the hon. Gentleman was placed in a certain position, but I do not see why, because the lease was up, the system of producing clothing by the State service should have been abandoned altogether. Pimilico was brought into being because of the ill-service rendered by private enterprise in days gone by. The whole of the very varying State supply services was practically brought into being through the very maintenance of the Army by the State itself. There were civil experiences of private enterprise—the corruption of old-time individualism. I am not going to say that the State factory for producing soldiers' clothing was the last, and final, word in efficiency, but I will say that it produced good clothes. It did its work —there was no fault in that—and it always acted as a brake upon people who would otherwise have fleeced the State.
What guarantee have we that we will not get into the regularroutine of certain firms thinking that, because they have accommodated themselves to producing a certain type and cut of clothing, they have some guaranteed position, and that they can take advantage of that guarantee? What guarantee are we to have that we will have any standards by which we can judge of private enterprise if we have an outbreak of war? I am really astonished at the complete abandonment by the War Office of that State service. It is not only alien to what has been the practice of the War Office, but it is a very dangerous line for the War Office to take, either from the peace-time or the war-time point of view. It will not be denied, I think, that the Services Contracts Department, if its experience was used, could give this Government quite a lot of light upon the manipulations of those people who buy in foreign markets on a wholesale scale and sell to retailers. I daresay the War Office, buying wholesale to supply its own soldiers, could, if its experience was open to the average citizen, explain a great deal of the difference between wholesale and retail prices to-day. In supplying its own people, I think the Contracts Department is, probably, one of the most efficient in this country. As a matter of fact, I myself have had experience of this with regard to the Contracts Department. During 1924 a very able civil servant was at the head Of the Department. Im-
mediately he left the War Office, he was snapped up by the National Union of Manufacturers to serve their purposes. I think it is a mistaken policy on the part of the War Office to have abandoned altogether the Army Clothing Factory.
What is happening with regard to the ordnance factory at Woolwich? Are the people there getting their full share of work? Regularly there is a tug-of-war between the private firms and the State factories as to who is going to get the bulk of the work. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) was going to raise this matter and the question of pensions. Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the policy of paring down State work is not being followed with the object of giving private enterprise advantages at the expense of those in the employment of the State? I sometimes think we ought to have a different method of dealing with these Estimates. We have here a big book, almost a library of figures, dealing with the expenditure of £37,000,000, and we know that this may be the last, or almost the last, Debate in which we can discuss this matter. It is high time we had some new method of dealing with these Estimates.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on maintaining the educational and vocational training. Vocational training is one of those things which have emerged since the War. The educational training, while it is the same service as that which prevailed before the War, has been so changed in personnel and method that the results, as compared with pre-War results, have been more than could be dreamed of, having regard to the expenditure concerned. I say without hesitation that the best educated adolescent in this country is the young man educated in the Army—not on the military and fighting side, but the plain, general, ordinary educational side. You have only to note his bearing, and to talk to such a man, to see what can be done. It makes me the more regret that we have not such high standards for civilians outside the Services. If we could have the same standards as those which are supported by the Regular officers, applied by employers to their employés—standards of welfare, feeding, clothing and education such as we have in the Army—we would have the outlook of the personnel of this country revolutionised.
One of my hon. Friends raised the question of dress. The committee dealing with the matter has my sympathy. I endorse the sentiment of one of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who spoke from the benches behind me. I have only seen this dress in pictures and I do not know whether they do it justice—it looks something like the morning after the night before. If the soldiers in this dress are as sorry for themselves as they look, they must be in a bad state indeed. It is true that they may have the right kind of neck, but otherwise they are not worthy of that smartness of appearance which we expect. My hon. Friend who opened the Debate dealt with the main heads of this expenditure. He asked about Catterick. It is about time that camp was finished. It is a beautiful camp in many respects and has a lot of good things for games and amusements for soldiers, but I hope we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman whether we are getting value for the increased expenditure and how much it will cost. On page 137 is a subsidy of £3,000 for mechanised motor lorries and that kind of thing. I understand that £40 a year is paid to certain firms. Is that subsidy really necessary now? I do not think that it is. It was necessary when the kind of lorries that the Army wanted were being developed and were in their infancy, but it cannot be said that they are in their infancy now. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give a definite answer to the points that have been put about the £1,500,000 increase which, however it may be looked at, may be a gain to the Army but is a loss which it can ill afford to the civilian side of the country, a great mass of which is in a lamentable condition.

7.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in what he said about the new uniform. I have only seen it in pictures, but if the reality is anything like the pictures, it is a uniform which should only be used for training, another uniform being provided for other occasions. I hope that the introduction of the new uniform will hasten the day when full dress will be restored to the whole Army. The Financial Secretary invited hon. Members to give suggestions which would help for better co-ordination
of the three Fighting Services. To that end I will ask him to put in force the most important recommendation which was made by the Private Members Economy Committee, and appoint a committee to go into the question of Imperial defence as a whole and into the relations of the three Services with each other. That is most urgently wanted at the present time. There has been no committee of investigation into the Army for nearly 30 years. I do not know whether there has ever been an investigation into the Admiralty since it was created, and there has not been one into the Air Force. We certainly want something of this kind for I am certain not only that it will improve efficiency, but that we shall not get any real economy until something of the sort has been done. I agree with those hon. Members who have asked for an opportunity to discuss the Estimates of the Fighting Services together. That point is raised every year, and everybody agrees with it except the Government of the day. There is always some difficulty about it, but I am sure that we shall not discuss the Estimates to the best advantage until we can discuss them together.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is not in his place at the moment, because I want to make a reference to something that he said. He gave us his annual attack on the Household Cavalry, to which we are quite accustomed. Every time I listen to him I wonder whether he knows anything about their history. One statement that he made was that a regiment of Cavalry of the Line cost £46,000 a year. According to page 286 of the Army Estimates, the cost is £75,600. That being so, it completely vitiates the comparison which he made between the cost of a regiment of Household Cavalry and the cost of a regiment of the Cavalry of the Line. The Memorandum states that the strength of the Army Reserve will fall by about 5,000 men this year. That is most regrettable, and I urge upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity of keeping up the strength of that Reserve because we have nothing else now to keep up the strength of the Army, especially the strength of the Infantry, in time of war. In the last war we had special reserve battalions which did valuable service. These have been abolished and we have nothing left except the Army Reserve. I
am afraid that in the event of a serious war, and the Army needing a lot of reinforcements, there will be a temptation when the Army Reserve is used up to use the Territorial Army for drafting. The new proposals of the Government with regard to enlistment to the Territorial Army will make that temptation to use that Territorial Army for drafting all the greater. I urge the Government to take steps to restore the strength of the Reserve and if possible to increase it.
The same remarks apply to the officers. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that he thought that there were too many officers, but I do not agree. In war the wastage of officers is very great. We have the Supplementary Reserve, and on page 9 of the Estimates the establishment and the strength of that Reserve are given, but all ranks and categories are bulked together. On page 67 the establishment of the Supplementary Reserve is given by ranks and categories, but we are not given its actual strength, and we cannot see how the strength compares with the establishment. For one category the establishment of the Supplementary Reserve is given here as 104 officers, but in the February Army List its strength is given as only 53. That is a very serious difference. It may be said that we have the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, but that reserve is composed mostly of senior officers. We must have for purposes of war a proper reserve of junior officers, and as far as I can see we have not got it.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. ROSS: I heard with amazement that hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench expected to hear something about Disarmament. Considering that the British Army, according to the Hoover scale, is hopelessly inadequate for police purposes, I think that if hon. Members wish to talk about Disarmament they might at least pay a tribute to this country in having set a standard of disarmament which has not been approached by anybody else. With regard to economy, the Army has enormous duties to perform and the truest economy is to have the best organisation. I sometimes wonder whether the present system, which is 60 years old, and is
known as the Cardwell system, is the best for that purpose. The arbitrary method of dividing the Army into two is admirable for some purposes, but not all. The purposes for which we need our Army are lucidly set forth in the Training and Manoeuvres Regulations, namely, (1) Imperial policing, (2) minor expeditions, (3) major operations, possibly including the Territorial Army, and (4) a national war. No doubt for the first two the Cardwell system is admirable, but I am not certain that it is the best system for the third and fourth. The Indian Army has been constantly reorganised. The regimental system has been introduced since the War, but except for the internal organisation of smaller units, the Army at home seems to have had very little thought applied to it. I would put forward the suggestion that a better system might be introduced with great advantage, and we look with confidence to that distinguished Ulsterman, the new Chief of the General Staff, who is a soldier in whom I do not think anybody can have anything but the greatest confidence, both because of his record and his personality.
There is another question in Army organisation which must exercise the minds of those who are interested in military affairs. When is there going to be a clearly enunciated policy of mechanisation? Is it going on a steady considered course? We have not heard very much from the Financial Secretary on that point. It is well known that, at all events as regards one form which was of an experimental nature, the transport has been put back to horse transport. On page 107, where the warlike stores in Vote 10 are considered, I see that as between this year and last there is an increase of £1,000 in the provision of horse transport vehicles, whereas the amount spent on mechanical transport has decreased by £28,000, which prima facie would suggest that that policy is not of a steady forward nature. I do not know whether it is the policy of the War Office to increase the mechanised forces. I expect they must increase, and, if that be so, in what manner will it be done? Two distinguished regiments were transferred from a cavalry to a mechanised basis, and it would be a great misfortune if the traditions of the old regiments should ever be lost through their cavalry or even infantry becoming
to some extent out of date. I would urge that if ever there is any large scale mechanisation that principle should not be perpetuated, but that the existing regiments should be used on a re-armed basis for any extension in that direction.
An hon. and gallant Member who spoke earlier in the evening alluded to various points in connection with the armament equipment. There is the question of the light automatic, which I should have thought was one of considerable moment to the cavalry. From such small experience as I have, I should have thought the light automatic was a weapon on which they relied very considerably, but, as I understand it, they have had no light automatic for a considerable time. Since the Hotchkiss was abolished they have been given no substitute. But the most serious lack in army equipment is the lack of an anti-tank gun. Let us consider the alternative which is provided. The War Office provided the Army with flags instead. In peace time the flag has certain very definite advantages over the gun. It is more portable, it is lighter, it is probably a thing of beauty; but surely the primary condition which should be considered is the use of the Army in war.
The reference to the reorganisation which took place in 1928, alluded to on page 38, describes the organisation of the battalions. The battalion is to have a headquarter wing, and it is laid down that the headquarter wing is to have four anti-tank weapons. "Is to have." As far as I know nothing has ever been done about it. What protection have the unfortunate infantry against mechanised vehicles, beyond their powers of concealment, which are no doubt a military art, but one which we do not want to see overstrained? In that respect I do not think the infantry have any form of retaliation. The modern armoured fighting vehicle is much less troubled by ordinary machine-gun fire than the vehicle of the war-time experiments, and I think we require some rather detailed explanation of what, prima facie, appears to be, perhaps, a neglect of the obligation to have an efficient and properly equipped Army.
Lastly, I would say that I think the House, or such Members as are interested in military affairs, would welcome an opportunity of seeing the Army as it
exists to-day. I may be wrong, but I do not think the Members of the House have had an opportunity of seeing the developments of military science in the last few years, and I am sure there are many hon. Members who would very much appreciate such an opportunity if it were afforded by the War Office. Above all, I hope we shall never sink into the complacency of thinking that we have a perfect machine. There are many points which ought to be considered. The question of a noninflammable fuel is one of them. I might have gone into some of these questions, but at this hour I will content myself with the few observations I have made.

7.35 p.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: In the few remarks I am going to make I would like, as so many other speakers have done, to draw attention to the recommendations of the Private Members' Economy Committee. It was a source of great gratification to me to hear from the Financial Secretary that some of the recommendations were in course of being adopted. I am all the happier to have had that assurance, as my perusal of the Estimates had not led me to believe that the recommendations were being considered at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Windsor-Clive), I am glad to say, underlined the most important of the recommendations of the Economy Committee, namely, that a committee should be established to inquire into Imperial Defence as a whole. I would add my voice to his, and say that I very much hope that such a committee will be set up. The Secretary of State is particularly fortunate in the military advisers he has just now, and I cannot but believe that the suggestion of an inquiry into the three Services would be welcomed by them. The relationship between the three Services requires to be defined and revised. We know there is a certain amount of co-ordination at present, but the position needs clarifying. Not only would such inquiry, in my belief, lead to greater efficiency, but it would lead to greater economy as. well, since such an inquiry would furnish the only means whereby the services common to all three of the fighting branches of the Crown would come under review as a whole.
I am aware that the Weir Committee reported against any such amalgamation,
but I was glad to hear from the Financial Secretary that he himself was not opposed to the ground being further explored in that direction. I do hope the House and the War Office will not allow themselves to be deterred by the fact that the Weir Committee reported against the amalgamation of these common Services. Anybody who was aware of the composition of that committee, and the witnesses whom they heard, would have been able to prophesy that their finding would be against amalgamation. Perhaps the result of an inquiry such as I suggest would rid us of the dangerous fiction whereby the three chiefs of staff of the three Services are assumed to have individual and collective responsibility for advising on defence policy as a whole. I would very much like to draw the special attention of the Financial Secretary to this extremely important point. The Salisbury Committee defined these three chiefs of staff in this way "The three compose, as it were, a super chief of a, war staff in commission." Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to me what that means. To me it sounds exactly like a description which was one applied to Metternich: "A loud-sounding nothing." I do not know who said that, unless it was Talleyrand. It was such a formula as the Bishop of Autun would have imagined if he had wanted to hide his meaning. It is as obscure as was the relationship of that prelate with the Church. In any case, it is a formula that is in no way Napoleonic, because it is completely and absolutely obscure. I think that is one of the most important points requiring looking into.
There is only one particular point in connection with economy which I have time to take up. The Economy Committee ask that the names of officers who receive grants for distinguished or meritorious service should be given. Their names were always published up to the year 1914 or 1915. The grant itself was instituted before the days of pensions and I have nothing at all against the maintenance of this fund. It may provide a valuable means of helping officers in need of assistance, but as the money is provided by the public it is only right that the names of the officers assisted should be given. I beg to ask that the Financial Secretary should undertake to
publish the names in future. I would have liked also, had I had time, to go into the question of the personnel of the War Office. I must leave it aside, simply underlining the fact that it is the civil side and not the military side that is so swollen.
In conclusion, I would say one word on the administration of justice in the Army. There is a long-standing grievance which ought to be adjusted. In the Army the right of appeal is illusionary. Any case, at all its stages, is always referred back to the same individual. I think nobody has any complaints against the officials concerned. They are men of outstanding capacity and scrupulous integrity, but there is a defect in the system. Take the case of a general court martial. A charge is made out, and it is sent to the Judge Advocate General's Department. A charge is there framed, and the court martial then takes place, a representative of the Judge Advocate General being presnt. The findings of the court are sent to the War Office. The Judge Advocate General advises the Army Council as to whether the charge should be upheld or set aside, and should there be an appeal by the condemned individual it is again the Judge Advocate General who will advise the Army Council on that point. So that under the guise of examination or of appeal the same individual, who must, perforce, take a certain stand at the beginning, is called upon to adjudicate in regard to the opinion he has himself given. This seems to be contrary to the spirit of public justice, and should be altered.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I wish to compliment the Financial Secretary to the War Office on the lucid manner in which he brought forward his Estimates to-day. He deserves the congratulations of this House for his clear exposition, and for the magnificent manner in which, without a note, he addressed the House upon such an important matter. I intervene to draw the attention of the House to the fact tha on Tuesday of his week a decision was taken to grant £145,000 to 20 county boroughs and three counties in the distressed areas. We pointed out that we considered that that amount was most inadequate. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an application should now be made to this House for £739,000 to be given to the Territorials, five times
greater than that allocated to the depressed areas to tide them over their difficulties. I do not think that there is any danger of a siege or of any enemy landing in this country, nor do I think that there is any danger of a war. Why we should be asked for £739,000 to provide a fortnight's or a month's holiday for Territorials is beyond my comprehension. I could understand it in a time of danger when it is absolutely essential, and I would never dream of saying that the Territorials ought not to get the advantage of training. I believe that it does men good.
We are told by a substantial body of experts on the Government side, when we advance a plea in regard to the depressed areas, that the Government are not able to pay, and that we must be economical. Notwithstanding the disadvantages under which we labour, the Government now ask and expect this proposal for a sum five times greater than that which they are prepared to give to those 20 boroughs and three counties to be passed without opposition. Just for a holiday for the Territorial Service they expect us to pass that proposal. With all due respect to those who favour economy, I say that such a thing ought not to be tolerated. While areas are in such a depressed condition that poverty is rampant—the daily papers are to-day saying so, in spite of what the Minister said—and they are near to bankruptcy in their accounts, it is utterly outlandish to ask us to vote £739,000 for the Territorials.
I am not condemning the Minister, nor, for one moment, am I anxious to criticise his Department, but I am saying that a Department must be logical and consistent. If economies are to be practised and sacrifices are to be made, they must be made all round in the best interests of the nation. To spend £739,000 for military manoeuvres with Territorials, and for playing at sham soldiers, is a waste of the country's money. It could be much better expended in depressed areas like Durham, Liverpool, and other places where people are anxiously waiting to know what they will have to pay in rates in April. If the money were given to depressed areas instead of being applied to the game of toy soldiers, it would be much better for all concerned, I am bound to say these words, No one should come to this House and ask for
such a large sum of, money for this purpose. It appears to, me to be a nonsensical way of doing things.
I sometimes wonder whether it is Bedlam or the House of Commons that I am in. When I point out that two and two make four I am told that I am wrong. If it were to protect the nation, or if it were genuine expense on the Army or Navy, I should have no objection. I am by no means a little Englander. I believe that we have a right to protection. I believe that if other people arm, so should we. I believe that we have a right to protect our shores. For the life of me I cannot understand this expenditure shall vote against it, because I believe that it is a waste of public money which could be put to better use.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: I hope that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) will pardon me if I do not comment upon his speech. it strikes me that it was a very good example of the misrepresentation which these Estimates will have to suffer up and down the country. It is for that reason that I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to explain to us, who are loyal supporters of the National Government, what at first sight appears to be a very extraordinary state of affairs. We are voting £38,000,000, and I regret the lack of interest which this House apparently takes in the matter. That sum represents an increase, of about £1,500,000 on last year's figure. It is represented very largely by increases in warlike stores and, of course, by the grant to the Territorial Army, As far as the Territorial Army, is concerned, I am perfectly prepared, and so I think are most hon. Members, to defend- the grant for the purpose of the camps, because it is clear, as anyone who has talked to Territorial officers wall knows, that if that grant had not been made this year you might just as well have disbanded the whole Territorial Army. It is perfectly useless to have a. Territorial force if it does not go to camp. The falling off in recruiting is clearly the result of the cancellation of the camp last year.
That is not subject upon which I feel any diffidence, where the electors are concerned. My quarrel, with these Esti
mates is the same as I had last. year. It is that the economies which could be carried out in the Army service have not been carried out. I gather that the Financial Secretary asked again this year for suggested economies. Although I am not a very old Parliamentary bird, I 'am not going to be caught with that chaff again this year. All I will say upon it is that I advise my hon. Friend to look at the recommendations in the Economy Report of the 1922 Committee. Those recommendations are for immediate economies, and I hope and believe that they would reduce the expenditure on the Army without decreasing its efficiency. I am not encouraged, after what occurred to me last year, to go further into the question and to discuss with the Financial Secretary to the War Office the question, for example, of the Non-Effective Vote, a large Vote of £8,000,000, upon which I made suggestions which do not appear to have been put into operation or even to have been considered.
There are other matters which I think should be elucidated. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Army last year spent £150,000 on stationery and printing, and that this year it will spend about £138,000 on this item when the Army numbers only 148,000 men. Is not that the kind of thing which might well be investigated? I can only describe the consideration by this House of a book of Estimates of 350 pages as a pious futility. How can we, in the course of a Debate of some three or four hours, usefully go into details Y We cannot be expected to do so. I do not believe that anybody from the War Office thinks or hopes that we will. We can only skim them, and then conduct a sort of cavalry charge on our respective hobby-horses over the ground that is covered each year by hon. Members.
The Financial Secretary asked for suggestions, and I propose to make two. I suggest that we carry out the recommendations of the Economy Committee dealing with the appointment of a special committee to consider the whole of the Army and the question of Imperial defence, and to go into the whole question of expenditure and co-ordination. We cannot be expected to consider matters of that sort: until we know what the Government's defence policy is. Here is
the Memorandum produced by the Secretary of State for War, and on the back of it, on page 8, there is the statement about Works Services, and the necessity for replacing huts and camps and things of that sort. How can we determine, until we know what the Government's defence policy is, whether most of those places are not hopelessly obsolete and ought to be scrapped altogether, and whether the defence policy ought to produce a concentration of the Forces of the Crown in other places? We do not know, and we cannot discuss the matter. The necessary preliminary must be the appointment of a committee with full powers to investigate and to report.
I should like to see one other reform carried out. The third Recommendation of the Economy Committee's Report consisted in a demand that this House should regain financial control over the Estimates. I am fortified in that Recommendation by the Report of the Committee on Procedure over which the Minister of Mines presided and which reported last year. That committee considered the whole of this question of the Estimates, and it came to the conclusion that the financial control of the House of Commons was very defective. It made Recommendations as to how that financial control could be resumed. One of the Recommendations was an increase in the size of the Estimates Committee, and to that I would add the splitting up of the Estimates Committee into smaller bodies to consider Estimates like this, so that it should not be possible for them to be brought to us a week before they are to be voted without ever having been considered by a committee, but left to each individual Member's consideration and criticism.
Every Vote ought to be the subject of very rigorous examination. It ought to be the duty of every hon. Member, and he should be compelled to attend a committee dealing with some particular Estimate, that is if we are ever to regain real control over public expenditure. That is not an impracticable suggestion; it is not my suggestion at all, but it is made by the Committee on Procedure which heard a very large number of witnesses. It came to this conclusion last year, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will strongly urge it upon his immediate chief, who in his turn will urge it upon the Cabinet. I hope that the
three statutory Supply Days suggested in that Recommendation will be adopted, so that the Estimates can be discussed not merely upon the usual opposition Motion, and that as a result there may be a real consideration of the Estimates and all that they stand for. If we are to regain our proper control of expenditure, if the Budget is to be balanced and economies are to be effected, we cannot do it except by the means that I suggest, and this Debate provides an opportunity of putting such a proposal forward in connection with the Army Estimates.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: The Debate has been so interesting, and the contributions of the various hon. Members who have spoken have been so valuable, that it is extremely difficult to reply, and I hope I shall not offend any hon. Members if it is found that I have dealt unsatisfactorily or at insufficient length with the suggestions that have been made and the questions that have been asked. I think that 13 hon. Members have spoken in the Debate. It is obvious that, if I dealt properly with every one of those speeches, I should have to detain the House for a great deal more than an hour, and I hope not to occupy more than half that time.
The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein) referred in ominous terms to something that happened to him last year, which, however, did not discourage him from taking part in the Debate this year. I do not know to what he was referring. I have consulted the account of the Debate last year, and I find that, although I endeavoured to reply to some of the points that he made on that occasion, I did not have time to reply to every one of them. In the same way I had not time to reply to every question asked by the hon. Member for Lunehouse (Mr. Attlee), who also was inclined to complain that he did not receive full measure in my reply last year. I have made notes of every Member's speech in the present Debate, and against almost every one of them I have noted at least three or four points of substance. I am sure that the House will recognise that it is impossible for me to answer them all.
With reference to the observation of the hon. Member for East Nottingham as to the difficulty of discussing Estimates
in Debate in the House of Commons, I must point out that that is part of the general problem of the congestion of business at the present time. When the hon. Member spoke of having a special Committee of Members, I suppose that what he had in mind was a small Select Committee to consider the Estimates of each Department. Apparently he forgets the Public Accounts Committee, which goes into the expenditure of every Department every year, and before which the permanent officials appear and answer questions. The Public Accounts Committee really does much, if not all, of the work that the hon. Member suggests ought to be done by such committees as he has in mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is not that done afterwards? It is a post-mortem examination.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: It is not done until after the money has been spent.

r. COOPER: Since the items are similar year by year, it does give the information that hon. Members want, and, should they desire to put forward any criticisms of abuses, they can do so on the next available occasion in the House of Commons.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, may I point out that that Committee does not begin to examine the accounts of these Departments until at least three months after the end of the financial year?

Mr. COOPER: That does not affect the point that the Public Accounts Committee does to a large extent perform the duties which the hon. Member for East Nottingham suggests should be performed by such committees as he has in mind. It would be very difficult, moreover, to find the time when such committees could sit. Even at present we are only able to get the necessary sanction for our Estimates in time for them to be debated before the end of the financial year. These Estimates are gone into very carefully, first by all the diffevent branches concerned, and then by the Army Council as a whole, where every point is brought out. If, after that examination, which cannot be completed until very near the end of the financial year, the Estimates had to be submitted again to another special
Select Committee of the House of Commons, I am afraid the delay would be so great as to render it almost impracticable to carry out the suggestion.
The hon. Member for Limehouse began by expressing regret, in which be was joined by several other hon. Members, that nothing had been said about disarmament, but I noticed that, having expressed that regret, they on their side said nothing about disarmament. They did not say that our Army was too big for our requirements, that it was unnecessary for us to maintain so many battalions of infantry, that we could easily reduce what was now being spent on artillery. They did not ask, "Why not cut down the cavalry?" If they had made some practical suggestion about disarmament, it would have given me at least something to reply to on that head. I said nothing about disarmament in my opening speech, because I took it as an axiom that our Army at the present time cannot be considered by any reasonable person in the country to be too large, and could not be considered by any foreign country to be a menace to the peace of the world. In the same way I thought that a great deal of the argument of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) was vitiated when he asked why this money should be spent at the present time, when there was no threat of war.

Mr. LOGAN: On the Territorial Army.

Mr. COOPER: That is not really an argument at all. We have to keep up an Army all the year round and every year, as though there were going to be a war to-morrow. It might be said that because there was no certainty of war the Army might be allowed to become inefficient, and the Territorial Army might he disbanded, but I do not think that even the hon. Member would go as far as that. He counselled us not to spend this money on the Army this year because there did not appear to be an immediate prospect of war. Pushed to its logical conclusion, that means that the Army might be allowed to disappear altogether, in the hope that there would be no war. With regard to the Territorial camps, I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Limehouse that he is quite wrong in describing them as a holiday. I used the word "holiday" in my speech in the
sense that I wanted to urge every employer of these men to give them a holiday from their work in order that they might go into camp. It is not by any means a holiday, although an almost entire change of labour and of conditions would be just as beneficial as a real holiday.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite realised the point that I made. The point was that the whole question whether we had security or not depended to a large extent upon what was done at the Disarmament Conference.

Mr. COOPER: I agree, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is not a question which could possibly be debated on the Army Estimates.

Mr. PIKE: Is it not true that a very large number of the men who will be going to Territorial camps this year are at the moment, and have been for some time, in receipt of public assistance; and will not their attendance at camp to that extent relieve the public funds of expense?

Mr. COOPER: It is quite true that a great many men who are now unemployed will gain both beneficial occupation and a pleasant and healthy change. The hon. Member for Limehouse went on to express regret, as other speakers did, that we could not here and now discuss the question of a Ministry of Defence. They included the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), who, however, having expressed his regret that that question could not be discussed, proceeded to discuss it. For that reason I am afraid I cannot reply to some of the questions that he asked and the criticisms that he made. We always remind the Leader of the Opposition on these occasions that it is within their power, whenever they wish to do so, to arrange for a Debate on this question by putting down the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence for discussion in the House.
My hon. and gallant Friend the. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Captain Herbert) raised the very important point—and he was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain Hope) and the
hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Brigadier - General Makins)—of the amalgamation of Woolwich and Sandhurst. One of his supporters was himself an old Woolwich cadet. The difficulty of this suggested alteration and of this suggested economy—because it would no doubt eventually prove to be an economy —is that it would probably necessitate, as so many economies do, an initial capital expenditure. It would almost inevitably be necessary to put up a new building at Sandhurst, while as my hon. and gallant Friend said, we have also to reckon with the natural feeling of those who have been educated at Woolwich—which is an ancient institution, being 200 years old—against any threat of its disappearance. It is possible also that, if it were decided to extend the course at these two academies from the present period of 18 months to two years, as has been urged, there would not be sufficient accommodation at Sandhurst to house all the cadets at one time. Nevertheless, so strong a case has been made for the suggestion this evening, and so unanimous an opinion has been expressed by Members in all quarters of the Committee, that I will undertake to have this matter given careful consideration in order to see whether anything can be done in the direction desired.
The hon. Member for Limehouse raised one or two minor points, such as the amount provided this year for the purchase of land. He wished to know where those purchases were, but I think it will be apparent to him on reflection that we cannot very well inform the House where it is that we intend to purchase laud, as such an announcement would no doubt increase the idea. that vendors have of the value of the land that they have to sell.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it at home or abroad?

Mr. COOPER: I could not say. The increase in warlike stores, to which the hon. Member also referred, is due to the reductions that were made in our purchases last year, and to the fact that such purchases have become inevitable this year. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) asked why the War Office staff had been increased. When I was replying to the Debate last year, I gave a summary in reply to a similar question, and I think the hon.
Member must either have listened to my speech on that occasion or have refreshed his memory, because he quoted from the remarks that I then made. I reminded the House that since the War seven separate committees had sat to consider the question of the War Office staff, and they were satisfied that it was not too large for its requirements. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that I used on that occasion, but I would remind the hon. Member, who a few months ago was Assistant Postmaster-General, that, in the period during which the War Office staff was increased from, I think, something like 1,878 to 2,2,47 the Post Office staff was increased by over 50 per cent., and I am sure that the Post Office was satisfied that that increase was necessary. My hon. Friend will no doubt tell me that the number of letters posted and telegrams despatched has now increased out of all proportion to the figures of 1914, That is true, and I would say that many of those letters, as I know to my cost, are addressed to the War Office and are sent from the War Office; and that is one of many reasons why the staff has increased so largely of recent years.
With regard to the Army Clothing Factory, I do not think that the situation is really clearly understood. It is not as though the factory were going on happily and could have gone on for ever. A decision regarding it had to be taken. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead quoted with some force the fact that two years earlier an official of the factory had stated before a commission that it was working very satisfactorily and economically, and was in every way a very desirable factory. He says that, in spite of that, a few years later we abolished the factory in order to make economies. He should remember that there was no possibility of our continuing the factory where it then stood. The lease was coming to an end, it was an unsuitable place for a factory and, no doubt, had we sought to renew the lease, we should have had to pay a very much larger sum.
Therefore, the question arose whether it was desirable to set up another factory and it was found that, although part of their work, the full dress work, which they were carrying out at that time was done more cheaply at the factory, on the other hand the greater part of their work, the ordinary service dress, could be
furnished by the trade more cheaply than the factory could produce it. It was decided that it was better to get that kind of dress from the people who made it more cheaply. Then the question arose whether it was worth. while continuing the setting up of a new factory for the manufacture of this single article of full dress. If it could have been shown that the article could be made cheaply by the trade, no ground could have been put forward for setting up a special factory for that single purpose. I am sure that even hon. Members opposite will agree with the view that I always take in regard to this question. Either you should have one Government Clothing Department for all the clothing worn by all Government servants, including Army, Navy and Post Office, which could be made a workable proposition, or else we should get it all from the trade. To set up a small factory to make one particular kind of garment was, on the face of it, not a workable proposition.
The hon. Member for Leigh had some interesting contributions to make to the problem of the clothing of the troops, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aston also put forward a. point of view which was supported by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. I will see that those recommendations are conveyed to the proper quarter, but I can inform the hon. Member for Leigh—it may be some satisfaction to him to know it—that, so far, it seems to be his view that is prevailing with the Committee, since I understand that, in the new clothing, puttees have been abolished and there is an open neck without any high Dollar, and without even the necessity of wearing a tie. Whether this ideal can be combined with the dignity of appearance to which other hon. Members rightly attach considerable importance remains to be seen. I do not think the hon. Member for Leigh was in the House when his figures with regard to the Household Cavalry of the Line were corrected by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive). He will find, on reconsulting the Army Estimates, that a regiment of the Household Cavalry costs only £2,000 or £3,000 more than a regiment of the line. and that is partly due to the greater expense of their uniform.
I do not want the hon. Member to go away with the impression that he sometimes seems to convey to the House that those distinguished regiments do nothing at all except ride from one part of London to another. They are as frequently called upon for active service as any other regiment and they have as fine a tradition as fighting regiments as any others. I will not go into a long discussion with him as to the desirability of maintaining some full dress in the British Army, but there are two opinions on the question. I hold very strongly that the expense is well made up for by the appearance of the soldiers so dressed. If you took a referendum of the people of the country as to what they thought about it, I think they would say they would gladly pay the almost negligible sum per head of the population in taxation in order to keep up the remnant of the parade and ceremony which were once more apparent than they are to-day.
When he comes to questioning whether I and my Noble Friends in another place are too many Ministers for one Department, I feel that I am treading on rather delicate ground. I can assure him that plenty of work is found for all three Ministers, and that in other Departments where there are only two Ministers there are frequent complaints that they are overworked. I am sure that, if the number of Ministers were reduced in the War Department, we should complain that we were overworked and of the many complaints that I have made in the last two years, that is the one complaint that I have not yet made. So it would be really a misfortune if that additional cause of grievance were added to the many that we have already. I think, on the other hand, that perhaps it would be better if the example given—there are only two Departments- in which there are three Ministers—were followed by other Departments. I am sure that the majority of Ministers do not have much time for their work and in the majority of the Departments they could very easily do with another Minister to assist them in the many demands that are made upon them. For the last 100 years or more there have been two or more in each Department. Of recent years the work has increased out of all measure and the suggestion that the number of Ministers should be cut down is one which will really not bear investigation and which
I should be quite prepared to have put before one of those inquisitorial committees which the hon. Member for East Nottingham is so eager to appoint.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) asked us about cadets, what we were paying for them this year, and what we were doing to assist them to go to camp. We pay nothing at all for cadets. That was made plain at the time we re-recognised the cadet corps. Our attitude to them was simply, "We will do anything for you. We like and admire you. Any help that we can give we will but, for Heaven's sake, do not ask us for a penny of money, because you will not get it." That is the attitude we have taken up from the first. My hon. and gallant Friend also criticised the number of senior officers and said it should be reduced. He also went so far, I understood, as to suggest that retired pay should be abolished altogether. I do not know how many of his fellow retired colleagues he has consulted before putting that suggestion forward but I am sure it is not one that would be very popular, and I do not see that it is one that any Government could possibly justify that you should dismiss servants of the State after many years service and give them no pension whatever.

Mr. ROSS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend said half pay.

Mr. COOPER: It is necessary to keep a large number of senior officers on half pay. It is necessary to have a certain number to select from when appointments come along. In the same way, it is necessary to have a large number of officers in comparison with men. The British Army, so small and so inadequate as it is for the tremendous demands which may be made upon it, and which have been made upon it in the past, must be one that is capable of expansion and, whereas it takes a comparatively short time to train a private soldier, it takes a long time to train an officer and you must have a larger proportion of officers in comparison with private soldiers than you would have in a, conscripted Army.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is that a reason for maintaining six Field-Marshals?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend was here when I spoke
earlier in the day. I dealt with Field-Marshals then. The question that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston raised, of the number of horses and the abolition of the light horse breeding scheme, is one that I have gone carefully into. We have registration of horses, all over the country which we could rely upon and avail ourselves of at any time of mobilisation and we believe and hope that, despite the lack of assistance that we are now given by the light horse breeding scheme, we shall have at all times a sufficient supply of light horses to satisfy our needs. He also dealt with the question of the movement of troops. Since last year we have saved a certain amount of money in this direction. No doubt, if the hon. and gallant Member goes on raising it every year we shall have each time a slight reduction until his wishes are completely met.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier - General Spears) asked me broadly why we had not dealt with any of the subjects that have been recommended by the private members committee. There is a list of some 32 subjects, and I thought it would shorten my speech if I left it to the Members themselves to bring up one or two of those subjects rather than give an answer to all the 32 one after the other. It is interesting to note that he himself only brought out one a them, and that is the recommendation that we should publish the names of all officers drawing special awards. The only reason why that suggestion is not adopted is because it would involve considerable expense and would not be justified by the desire of a majority of Members for the information. Invariably when you find hon. Members talking about economy, the only suggestion which they feel strongly about is one which involves, further expenditure.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: It is not quite fair to say that only one point was brought out by me, because owing to the late hour I was asked to curtail my speech, and so I only selected one point not dealt with by other Members.

Mr. COOPER: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend but I could not help taking advantage. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised one or two points of importance about the question of mechanisation and wanted to
know our policy with regard to mechanisation. He 'referred to a particular instance in which he found that the expenditure upon horses had been increased and that upon machines had been reduced. I have not had time to look up the particular point he mentioned, but I imagine that it occurred in a case where the machines had been withdrawn and where, with regard to horses, and in accordance with previous policy, renewal was needed. Our policy with regard to mechanisation is perfectly plain. We mean to go on with it and to proceed gradually with the mechanisation of transport throughout the Army and the Territorial Army. It must be a gradual process. It is a mistake to go too quickly and to buy machines which may prove obsolete or unworthy before they actually come into operation. We are going steadily forward in one direction. With regard to the new light machine-gun, that again is a matter which is still under consideration and the delay, which no one regrets more than I do, in coming to a decision is solely due to making sure that they get the right weapon and go in the right direction by right methods.

Mr. ROSS: We are very anxious about anti-tank guns.

Mr. COOPER: The question with regard to anti-tank guns is the same as that with regard to various other new inventions with which we are dealing and making experiments. I think that I have dealt with the majority of the points that have been raised. I see that I have forgotten to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) about subsidised lorries. There is a certain kind of six-wheeled lorry of very great value to the Army which at present—I am not certain that they will not have in the future—have no commercial market, and therefore no firm will use them simply to supply the War Office unless subsidies are paid to them. It is necessary that we should pay a subsidy to the firm which uses them, and we hope that in time to come that subsidy will not be necessary. I regard the points which have been raised by hon. Members as of real substance. They have been very helpful, and I am grateful to them for the assistance which they have given in the Debate, and I am
sure that the War Office will appreciate the suggestions which they have made.

Orders of the Day — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

8.30 p.m.

Captain WATT: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
 this House, realising the importance to the country of a strong and efficient Territorial Army, urges His Majesty's Government to encourage and stimulate recruiting in every way in order to bring the Territorial Army to its full peace establishment and to do everything in their power to maintain and increase its efficiency.
As a Territorial soldier, I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to the Territorial Army in this House, for it is not often that the Territorial point of view is placed before its Members. It is not often that there is any particular stress laid upon this vital and integral part of the armed forces of the Crown. It is an organisation which, as the Financial Secretary has said this afternoon, carries on at all times valuable and important work under great difficulties, and, in many cases, with considerable inconvenience to the Members who compose it. The year 1932 in particular was by no means an easy year for the Territorials. They suffered much in efficiency and in numbers as a result of the sacrifice which they were called upon to make in the name of economy. Those sacrifices and burdens at the time were gladly borne as it was their contribution to the National effort. They now feel, however, that, in order to counteract the ill effects which resulted from those sacrifices, special efforts must now be made on their behalf. The Financial Secretary's extremely able speech this afternoon, and particularly his sympathetic reference to Britain's second line Army, will I am sure do much to encourage, stimulate and renew interest in the Territorials, and will, at the same time, remove many of the uncertainties, misconceptions, and difficulties which exist.
The three chief obstacles which the Territorial Army has had to face in the last 18 months have been reduction of War Office grants, which have made the question of administration by no means easy, the cancellation of camps in 1932, and the tardy announcement that camps will be held this year. Those factors have
reacted detrimentally upon the strength and efficiency of all ranks, as is seen when we compare the recruiting figures of 1931 with those of 1932. In September, 1931, there were 30,000 recruits, whereas in the year September, 1932, when recruiting was deplorably lacking there were only 14,000, less than half the number of recruits approved in the previous year. This is a very serious state of affairs, and particularly when the wastage is taken into consideration. I mean by the wastage, those men who leave the Army after the expiration of their service or for any other reason. For example, in the month of January of this year we find that while 1,617 recruits were finally approved for service, 2,156 men left the Army, making a net loss in that month of 539. The same is true of the preceding months. In the last few weeks the recruiting on the whole has been much better but is still bad, though the recent announcement that camps would be held this year has already acted as a fine stimulus.
There can be no doubt, despite what the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said this afternoon, that to have gone without camps for two years in succession would have been a devastating policy and would, in my opinion, kill the Territorial Army altogether, for camps are the axis round which the entire organisation of the Territorial Army revolves year after year, and they form the only real recruiting ground for the next 12 months. The statistics issued in Army Estimates show that the Territorial Army, as the Financial Secretary pointed out this afternoon, is some 44,000 men short of its establishment of 162,000. The strength on the 1st February was only 119,628. These figures indicate a considerable and an alarming drop in numbers over the figures for the corresponding period of last year. It is a serious position especially when it is remembered that there is no longer any militia for us to fall back upon and that the numbers of the Army Reserve are strictly limited. It would be a disaster if the Territorial Army was allowed to dwindle away like this, for if it did it would make all the more difficult a reduction in the Regular Army, which might come about by virtue of any agreement between the Powers in regard to disarmament. It is only with the knowledge that we have a strong and
efficient defensive Army ready for use that we are able to press forward our claims for lower armaments on the rest of the world. Without the Territorial Army that would be a step which any Government would hesitate to take. The alternative to an efficient Territorial Army can only be an increase of the Regular Army and that would involve far greater expense to the country. On the other hand, with the Territorial Army at full strength it is possible that further cuts may yet be made in the Regular Army, provided that other countries agree to similar and corresponding cuts.
I suggest that a reduction could be made in the Regular Army, when the time comes, by abolishing or at least modifying the traditional idea of having one Infantry battalion at home and one abroad. Instead of having one Infantry battalion at home it might be possible to have a stronger and better equipped depot, from which could be sent drafts to foreign stations. That would effect a considerable reduction in personnel and of expenditure, and with an efficient Territorial Army carrying out still further obligations there would be no diminution of security. The obligations of the Territorials have becomes greater and greater, and with the handing over to them of coast defence and a large part of Air defence, enlistment in the Territorial Army now means more than ever that the officers and the men are assuming a more serious responsibility in performing voluntarily a public service of vital national need.
The Territorial Army is not merely a movement, like the Boy Scouts or the Boys' Brigade, great as those movements are, but an integral part of the Defence Forces of the Crown, and as such they deserve more support and recognition. That is the first thing that the Territorial Army asks, namely, that it should have definite, wholehearted and more active support from the Government. At times the Territorials have felt that the War Office and the Government have not been fully conscious of the difficulties with which the Territorial Army is confronted. That feeling is probably exaggerated, but not altogether unfounded, for some of their actions within recent times seem to have shown very little appreciation of the problems involved. I make these observations in all sincerity and earnestness.
For example, when in September, 1931, it was decided, for financial reasons, to restrict recruiting, instructions were issued from the War Office to the effect that the maximum strength of all units had to be reduced to 97 per cent. of the strength of any particular unit on the 1st August, 1931. In order to get down to that figure cases were not infrequent where men had to be dropped out of the Service who might have continued service longer, and many admirable recruits were turned away during the period that that Order was in operation. Then there followed the Order cancelling the camps for 1932, and recruiting fell off badly. It was bound to do so. That evidently came as a shock to the War Office, because the Order in Council was hastily rescinded. But the restrictions were withdrawn and the Order was withdrawn too late, because the damage had been done. My criticism is not so much of the policy but of the method. If the Government considered that a reduction in numbers was necessary, it should have been possible to have achieved that result by arrangements with units without the hasty issue of orders and an equally hasty cancellation, when it was too late. The Department of the War Office which makes a special study of the Territorial Army ought to have known that cancellation of the camps, or even talk of cancellation, would reduce the number of recruits automatically.
Speaking in the House a short time ago, in reply to a question, and again this afternoon, the Financial Secretary intimated that, as a stimulus to recruiting, a review will be held in London, but that it will be confined to the two London Divisions. That is all very well if it is meant to raise the strength of the London units, but if it is meant to be an honour or reward to the Territorial Army, then I think the review ought to be composed of representative detachments from the whole of the Territorial Army from all over the country, giving pride of place to those units which have the biggest strengths. If it is meant for London only, then the honour will be going to the two worst units from the recruiting point of view. It would be unwise to hold a review for the London units unless it was clearly stated that it was an effort made by the London district to help the London units, and not an honour conferred on
the Territorial Army as a whole. In that case it would be far better to call it an inspection and not a review.
Admittedly, London's problems are quite different from those of other commands. If the Government and the War Office think that a review of this kind would stimulate recruiting in other areas, well and good, but for my part I believe that the chief reason why the London units are still so much below strength is that no longer are many of these units in suitable recruiting districts. It would be better for the Government to take the brigade's and ancillary troops away from their old districts altogether, and to begin afresh in the new suburbs which have sprung up since the War, where the best and perhaps some of the most suitable types of potential recruits are to be found. That policy would involve a good deal of expenditure and may not be possible at the present time, but it is a suggestion which the Financial Secretary and the Government ought to keep in mind, because that is the only way in which the London units, and particularly the technical units, could get up to full strength.
To effect alterations of that kind and to get the Territorial Army appreciated at its proper value there ought to be Territorial Army officers at the War Office and on the staffs of the Territorial Brigades and the Territorial Divisions. If that is found not to be suitable or convenient, then, at the least, there ought to be a Territorial Army general officer at the War Office, in order to advise the Director-General of the Territorial Army. He could act as a technical officer or assessor. Although that suggestion has been put forward at various times no valid reason has ever been given why that appointment should not be made. There are men well qualified to do the job and willing to give the necessary time to do the necessary work.
There is ample room for progress in the relations of the Army Council with the Territorial Army, particularly in regard to the question of conditions of service. That is a matter in regard to which there is dissatisfaction. It centres round what is popularly called the pledge that the man takes when he joins the Army. This is a, matter of supreme importance, because it cuts?t the roots of the whole Territorial Army. There is much uncertainty and a good deal of
feeling as to what this pledge is likely to be. When the Territorials were formed in 1907, and subsequently reconstituted after the War, it was stated, probably as an inducement to recruiting, that the men would only be called upon to serve with their own friends and units. Now, there is talk that such a titling would be impossible in a future war and that the men would have to go where they were sent, just as they had to do in the last War, either to different Territorial corps, or as members of the Regular Army.
I realise the difficulties of this question, but it is the uncertainty both from the administrative and the active service point of view as to what the pledge is likely to be that is hindering the proper development of the Territorial Army at the present time. If the pledge was altered to one of general service, then it means at the very least still another sacrifice and another responsibility on the part of the Territorials. It may be that the whole question of the organisation of the Territorial Army, its status and its connection with the Army Council and the War Office will have to be reviewed. This is a difficult question, and the Army Council would be well advised to walk warily in considering it. It is uncertainties like these, the chopping and changing, that makes the Territorials disheartened. They are apt to take the edge off enthusiasm, to breed disappointment and even to cause resentment. The Territorials must be made to realise that they are being taken seriously and not merely shoved about from pillar to post by some whim or fancy.
I trust that during the forthcoming lecture tour, which I understand is being made, indeed has been begun, by the Under-Secretary of State, that any doubts on this question will be swept away. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on making this tour. I feel that more could be done by the Government and by responsible Members of it to push the Territorial Army in public on every possible occasion, and I am quite certain that a recruiting campaign of this kind will be of considerable value. But valuable as meetings and speeches undoubtedly are, what is required more than all the oratory in the world is a better appreciation of the psychology of the Territorial soldier and a greater show of
sympathy in making small concessions which would go further in keeping up the strength of the units than anything else.
There has been a great deal of unreasonable talk and propaganda against the Territorial Army on the ground of disarmament, and it has undoubtedly affected recruiting. It is perfectly clear, from statements made in various quarters, that there has been some misapprehension as to the relations between the Territorial Army and the ideas of the League of Nations for peace and disarmament. Disarmament, short of international agreement, can and must only be governed by the minimum requirements of security, but when this security proviso is understressed, or insufficiently stressed, there is a danger that the potential recruit will get the impression that he is not wanted. That is what has happened in many cases. There has been so much talk, quite proper talk, about disarmament and so little talk about the necessity of security that many men think that there is no need any longer to join the Territorial Army. That is an impression which the Secretary of State can correct by pointing out to the nation and to the potential soldier that by joining the Territorial Army he is not doing anything to impair the peace of the world, but is actually strengthening our national and Imperial position alike. It cannot be too strongly stressed that the existence of a strong and efficient Territorial Army is not incompatible with our views on disarmament and is in no way contrary to our relations with the League of Nations, as is recognised in a pamphlet recently published by the League of Nations Union.
The Territorial Army menaces no one with aggression, for by its very nature and conditions of service it cannot be anything else but a defensive organisation. It requires time for expansion, mobilisation and training and, therefore, cannot be by the greatest stretch of imagination a menace to the peace of the world. On the other hand, it provides a physical indication of our intention not only to fulfil our international obligations should one be required to do so but also to defend our own country should the emergency arise. In view of recent reductions and possible further reductions in the Regular Army the importance of the Territorial Army as a national reserve has become greater than
at any time in the chequered history of the corps. I urge the Financial Secretary, and the Government to do everything in their, power to make the Territorial Army not only more efficient and up to strength, but an organisation of which the wholes nation may be proud.

8.49 p.m.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: I beg to second the Amendment. The House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Keighley (Captain Watt) for his Choice of subject, and the Territorial Army generally will recognise that in him we have an officer who has at heart the best interests of the force. I should like to pay my tribute to the Financial Secretary, in whom we believe we have a good friend. I hope that my remarks this evening will be taken as a desire to help the Financial Secretary and the Department. The responsibilities of the Territorial Army are wider and greater than they have ever been before. It is essentially a defensive force. It has to defend these shores, and in view of the fact that our Regular Army has been reduced to such a point the responsibility of replacing it at home is such that I feel I am on safe ground in urging that we must see that the Territorial Army is maintained at full strength and full efficiency. It is also a good cause. The Territorial soldier must be a good citizen. He is disciplined, taught self restraint, and it is good that we should have units of such men scattered about the country. In my own area it is a source of pride to many villages and small towns to have a Territorial unit. It does an immense amount of good. A disciplined force of citizen soldiers in China, in my opinion, would have prevented the invasion which we have recently seen.
I endorse the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Keighley when he said that an efficient Territorial or citizen army enables us to go further and with greater confidence in real disarmament. It is the right line to take. Real disarmament can only be carried out when we have confidence in a citizen army. A severe blow was dealt to the Territorial Army when camp was suspended last year, but out of evil cometh good. There has been a far greater feeling of comradeship and friendship between the regular Army and the Territorial Army
since last year, which will have beneficial results in the future. The statement that annual training will be carried out this year is already having a good effect upon recruiting in the county of Staffordshire. For the month of February enlistments show an increase of 60 over the same month last year, and of 10 over those of 1931. I think the sites for annual camps deserve attention. In my opinion it is necessary that the Territorial Army should have one seaside camp every other year.
The Government can help the Territorial Army by encouraging employers, local authorities and public bodies generally, to give the necessary time for the men to attend annual training. My experience is that conditions vary very much. In some parts of the country employers make up the pay of the men who are away training, in other parts of the country it is difficult to get permission for the men to attend their annual training. I hope the Financial Secretary will take steps to urge upon local bodies the necessity for granting the men these facilities. Whilst there is complete liaison between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, I am afraid that as regards the administration in the War Office there is a feeling that a policy of pin pricks goes on in some ways. It is difficult for the Territorial soldier to understand what is wanted and why he is treated so differently. The Financial Secretary has told us this evening that savings on certain departments can be spent frequently in another department. In the case of the Territorial Army if a saving is made in one branch no allowance is made in another, with the result that confusion arises. If certain grants are inadequate, others are too large. I would like to see equal treatment of both Armies. It must be remembered that the Territorial Army, man and officer, is giving its spare time to this work. It should be given far greater consideration and should not be submerged in a mass of red tape and correspondence, as is so common now.
A few words about the establishment of the Territorial Army. Many of the departmental branches, like the Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Engineers, and Royal Army Medical Corps, are so small that efficient training is impossible. For instance, take the case of the
Divisional Royal Army Service Corps. Whereas before the War the establishment of men and materiel was something like 94 per cent., to-day it is less than 9 per cent., with the result that there must be considerable delay in time of emergency before this essential part of divisional organisation can function properly. The mechanisation of the Territorial Army should be carried out on lines similar to those of the Regular Army. I would like to see Territorial units responsible for the maintenance and repair of their own vehicles. Now the units are responsible only for running repairs. It is necessary that they should be given greater responsibility, so that by carrying out that work they may be training their personnel in readiness for the time when they may be wanted.
The Territorial soldier when once trained does not, in my opinion, have a proper opportunity of keeping himself trained. Certain units, the Royal Artillery in particular, have no allotment of ammunition, once they have been trained. It may be that a Territorial soldier goes on for years and never fires a gun. That is a very serious matter and should have the attention of the Financial Secretary. I wish to say something also about the pledge, to which reference has been made. In my opinion the change of attitude of the War Office, coming at this time, is far more serious than we realise. A well-informed letter on the subject appears in the "Times" this morning, and I will read this passage:
 Take away the pledge and we are back to the condition of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907. The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act laid down clearly that a man in the Territorial Army could not be compulsorily transferred outside his own corps, and that he could not be compulsorily transferred to the Regular Army. In place of these two restrictions, which many may think sufficiently elastic, the War Office is suggesting the introduction of general service. This is the second proposed alterations, and goes far beyond the mere removal of the pledge. The legal effect of the suggested new terms for enlistment would be to make the Territorial Army available for draft-finding purposes to the Regular Army.
I sincerely hope that the War Office will give very careful consideration to the matter before this step is taken. I have here a telegram from a battalion commander in the North of England, who says:
 I absolutely agree with the letter in to-day's ' Times ' and hope that careful thought will be given to the matter.
I would again pay my tribute to the Mover of this Resolution and express our indebtedness to him for choosing this subject.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I oppose this Amendment and must express my surprise at hearing a discussion like this so soon after the' Debate in which the Lord President of the Council warned the country and this House of the meaning of a future war. I recall that the Lord President of the Council outlined the dangers of any future war, and showed how life in all its phases would be eliminated and civilisation practically wiped out.

Captain WATT: I do not care to interrupt, but what I said was that having an efficient Territorial Army was in no way incompatible with our views on disarmament.

Mr. PRICE: I am quite aware of what the hon. Member said. I listened to his speech, and he put his own point of view very well, but I cannot agree with his' Motion. The Lord President of the Council, in the speech to which I have referred, spoke of the danger in the air. He told us that future wars would be fought in the air. He made an appeal to the young men and women of this country and of the world to recognise this danger. I am surprised to-night to hear young Members of this House suggest the enlargement and building up of Home forces, which inevitably can be of no use unless their advocates have in mind some future war. That is what tin training of these men has in contemplation. Such an appeal, coming from young men of "the age of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, is to me a, definite indication that the warning which fell from the lips of the Lord President has had very little effect on younger Members of the Tory party.
It appears very sad to me that these Estimates should indicate an expenditure this year of more than £1,000,000 of additional money upon the Army, even without prosecuting the policy suggested in this Amendment, which would, obviously, further increase our Army Estimates. Yet this is at a time when we have a Government which, from its inception,
has been attacking wages, reducing unemployment benefit and expenditure on education, and other such matters on the ground that the country cannot afford to maintain these important public services. We have heard from the Financial Secretary to the War Office about the difficulty in recruiting and about the inferior condition physically and mentally of many of the recruits who have offered themselves. But it was pretty obvious that, with the conditions of distress and poverty which young men to-day have to face, such a situation would inevitably arise. I cannot understand the policy of the Government, or the attitude of its supporters who come here and ask for an increase of £1,500,000 in Army expenditure, after 18 months of the strictest economy in public services, and the cutting-down of unemployment pay, resulting in the starvation of women and children in our industrial areas.
In spite of that, not only have the Government the effrontery to ask the House for this additional sum for the Army, but we find young men, who are supporters of the Government, those who might have been expected, after the call of the Lord President of the Council, to give a lead to world peace and prosperity, advocating the building up of home defence. What is in the minds of these hon. Members when they speak of home defence? Defence against whom? Who is expected to be the invader? [An HON. MEMBER "Scotland !"] Why this fear? May I suggest that if the young men of this country were employed at decent wages and properly fed, you would need no Territorial Army. They would be ready to defend their country at any time they were called upon to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are now !"] What are the conditions now? The hon. Member said that the Territorial Army was suffering from a want of recruits. Is that any wonder, when we see a Government deliberately lowering the standard of life of our young men in every possible way? Every Measure brought in by this Government without exception has been in that direction, and not one Measure has been brought forward that has been likely to alleviate the suffering and distress in our industrial and mining districts.
Therefore, we in this party cannot approve of spending any further money on armaments and warfare while the country's conditon is as it is at present, and while the National Government plead for economy in all other directions. If we have £1,500,000 to add to any Estimate it ought to go into the homes of the unemployed men who, with their families, have been suffering privation for the last six years. Nor can we approve of an Amendment of this description, and I am only sorry to hear young men like the two hon. and gallant Members who have spoken, putting forward such an Amendment at this time. They know that the Government which they support have attacked the standard of living of the wage-earners and sought to economise on our public services and in those circumstances it is, as I say, effrontery to expect that we who see, day by day, what is going on, should support further expenditure of this description.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) will forgive me for saying that I find some difficulty in discovering the relevance of his speech to the Amendment. Some of it would have been admirable if delivered on the main Vote. Still more of it would have been pertinent to the Motion moved yesterday by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and some of it would have been relevant to the Foreign Office Vote. But it had little to say about the question of the efficiency of the Territorial Army which is the matter now before the House. Whatever may be said of the need or lack of need for increased military expenditure and the possibility or impossibility of future hostilities, few reasoning people doubt that, if any expenditure is justified on defence, if we are to have any form of armed forces, the Territorial Army is at once the most valuable and the most vital.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth said that if people were properly paid and had the glorious conditions of life which he and his friends so desire to give them, and so signally failed to give them during the Labour Government's time in office, the young men would be ready and willing to defend the country, if necessary. But they would not be trained if the hon. Member's ideas were followed, and in the event of a future war exactly the same
thing would happen as happened in 1914. We should wait for years while we were learning how to fight. If you postulate any form of defence this form of defence, the Territorial Army, is, I repeat, the most valuable and the most vital. There is no danger of what hon. Members opposite shrink away from, in their fear of militarism. There is no danger of building up an expensive standing Army. There is no danger of an armaments race which hon. Members opposite regard as a cause of war. What is being done in the Territorial Army is to train citizens, in their spare time, from the ordinary avocations of life, to be able to defend their hearths and homes if necessary. Not even the most ardent believer in the success of the international machinery which exists for the avowed purpose of promoting peace, but apparently with the successful achievement of sundry wars, can object to such a useful and valuable purpose.
I want to mention two matters affecting the Territorial Army, One, which has already been dealt with by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, is the question of the pledge. When that matter came before the Territorial Association, of which I am a member, I suggested that though it was perfectly true that in the event of hostilities breaking out, the strict carrying out of the pledge would be impossible, it was ill-advised and undesirable to revoke that pledge at present, in view of the fact that it was not practically possible to put anything satisfactory in its place. The excitement, if I may so term it, in the Territorial Army as a result of the pledge emanates from the treatment of that Army during the War. The Territorial Army, realising now that they are virtually the only reserve that this country has, have no desire to be unreasonable. The day for playing at soldiers on the part of the Territorials has long since gone by. They want now to be part of a composite whole, and they want to be useful. They do not want to put frivolous objections in the way of organisation, but they want, to feel sure that in their training and exercises they are being trained as a unit and as units, and that they will have a reasonable chance, in the event of active service, of serving under the officers and with the people who have trained them.
Both the officers and the men want to feel that this work is building up the unit and is building up something which is a living entity and will be treated as such in time of war, should such a thing occur. Above all, they want some assurance, if possible, that they will not be treated as mere drafting units for the main force, that they will not simply be put there as a training unit from which the Regular Army will be recruited. I feel sure that if the War Office can give some binding undertaking that the Territorial Army, in the event of mobilisation, shall be treated as a, unit, and not merely as drafting depots, they will be perfectly content to abide by that decision.
The other matter, rather more technical, that I desire to raise is the question of mechanisation, particularly of artillery units. The House will probably know that since last year the whole of the Territorial field artillery has been mechanised. That may or may not be a good thing—that is a matter for far greater experts than I am to discuss—but they are not being mechanised as the Regular Army has been mechanised. They cannot be; there is not the money. That is perfectly understood. They cannot be given the new tractors, the new light cars, which are provided for the units of the Regular Army. The mechanised units of the Territorial Force have to work with Morris lorries and Morris-Cowley cars. I have not a word to say against the very valuable products of those works at Oxford, but I do say that Morris-Cowley light cars, bought, as they must be bought, on the cheap, make training and reconnaissance for our artillery work practically an impossibility.
Last year, when I raised this point, the Financial Secretary said that it was proposed to go on with mechanisation ill order that the Territorial Army should not be less efficient. My contention is that with the best will in the world it makes them less efficient. The machines put at the disposal of the Territorial Army for reconnaissance work render such training as is absolutely necessary if those units are to be made efficient absolutely impossible. You cannot go across country in these cars with any idea of getting speed, mobility, communication, or idea of country, and if the Financial Secretary or the hon. Member now representing him on the Front Bench doubts what I say,. I shall be only too
pleased, on a Sunday, when we have a parade, to take him along and show him.
If it is impossible, as I believe, to give us up-to-date and thoroughly modern. machines, it is worth while considering whether, for reconnaissance purposes alone, if not altogether, it would not be possible for those units who desire it and believe that it would improve their efficiency to go back either to the horse transport or, failing that, to the hybrid system which existed before last year, under which the reconnaissance staff was mounted on horses while the guns were pulled by tractors. Most people who have tried all three systems will agree, I think, that the present system of complete mechanisation under the existing conditions is the worst of all. I know there is the question of expense to consider, but I submit that the old issue of horses was grossly extravagant, and that it would be possible to go back to the old establishment with a great deal less expense than was formerly incurred; and I ask the War Office to give very earnest consideration to the question whether something on those lines cannot be done and the efficiency which I believe has been lost by the change regained.
I wish to conclude, as I began, by saying that I am convinced that, whatever the merits or demerits of the existence of an armed force may be, the country owes a very deep debt of gratitude to those officers and men, and particularly the men, who give up their leisure time, their only leisure time, to training themselves, making themselves efficient, and learning to defend their country in the Territorial Army. This House and the country would be guilty, not only of a grave dereliction of duty, but of the greatest possible folly if they did not make every effort to see that that enthusiasm, patriotism and energy are rewarded by the greatest possible assistance in every way in the endeavour to make the Territorial Force thoroughly efficient.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened for some hours to the discussion this evening on the subject of the Army Estimates, and I listened with especial pleasure to the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Keighley (Captain Watt), who introduced this
Motion. Let me hasten to add that I do not agree, probably, with two sentences of what he said, but that does not prevent my saying that be presented his case with remarkable ability. I confess that the speeches that I have heard to-day make me wonder where I am. To-day the Prime Minister has left for Geneva to discuss disarmament, in the hope of saving something from the Conference that is going on there. This afternoon a Minister of his Government presents Army Estimates in which he 'demands £1,500,000 more for armaments, and the hon. and gallant Member who introduced this Motion is not even satisfied now with what is being done, but, like Oliver Twist, is asking for more. Another curious fact that interests me is that the one and only time on which the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion and I have appeared on a public platform together was last year, when we appeared together on the League of Nations Union platform.
I am really wondering where I am, for the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Amendment, if he will forgive my saying so, almost scared me to death. From' his remarks I had visions of some imminent invasion of this country. It almost appeared that we were in deadly danger. When you speak of danger, as it has been spoken of here to-night, you go a long way towards creating the circumstances which present it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has invited us to consider two propositions. One is that the circumstances call for the stimulation of recruiting in every way in order to bring the Territorial Force up to full peace establishment, and, secondly, that everything should be done by the Government to increase the efficiency of the Force. In introducing his Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman adduced a number of arguments. I thought he did not quite do justice to the Memorandum from which he was quoting. It is quite true that the Memorandum contains the statement he quoted, namely, that the number of recruits in the year ending September, 1932, was 14,653 as against 30,142 in the previous year, a decrease of 15,489. That is in the first paragraph, but there is a second paragraph which says:
 The last quarter of 1032, however, shows a marked improvement, as 5,061 recruits were taken, as compared with 1,813 in the corresponding period of 1931.

Captain WATT: I did say that recruiting in the last few weeks had shown a marked improvement.

Mr. JONES: Yes, but there is a little difference between the last few weeks aid the last quarter. It looks as if the improvement was sustained for three months. The point I want to make is that it would appear that the effect of the cancellation of the camps last year had been quite unintentionally exaggerated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The sentence I have quoted was printed in February, so that it is clear it was referring to the last quarter of 1932. Obviously, then, that takes you back very close to the time when the camping period expired. Therefore, it is not strictly true to say that the immediate effect of the cancellation of camps last year was to destroy recruiting for the Territorial Army. The facts are against that. I would like to ask one or two questions about this matter. First of all, it would seem that the Amendment is very largely couched in terms which were perhaps encouraged or fathered by the Government, as some previous Amendments have sometimes been The hon. and gallant Gentleman secured a fortunate place in the Ballot, and no doubt the Patronage Secretary encouraged him and stimulated him' as to the sort of subject it would be proper from the Government point of view to move. Perhaps he even provided the hon. and gallant Member with an appropriate draft; I do not know. Anyhow, he has delivered an appropriate speech in support of the draft.
In what circumstances are we considering this Amendment this evening? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last referred to mechanisation. Of course, I do not speak as an expert at all, but everyone knows that mechanisation is one of the characteristics of the age in business generally. I understand from discussions here, and in Committee upstairs also, that mechanisation is used to an ever-increasing extent in the armed Forces of the Crown. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at another paragraph on page 6 of the Memorandum he will find this statement:
 Hitherto Divisional Royal Engineers and Divisional Signals have been allowed, if so desired, to use mechanised transport instead of horse transport, as laid down in their peace establishments. It has now been
decided to place these units on a permanently mechanised basis, and new establishments are now under consideration.
What relation has that to the subject we are discussing now? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have the curiosity to look at the figures in relation to the strength of the Territorial Army he will find that in the year 1923 the strength was 140,000. In 1928 it was 139,000, and in 1932 it was 126,000. Let us remember that this mechanisation process is also taking place, and the more you mechanise clearly the more do you add to the actual strength of the Forces which you are mechanising; otherwise, what is the point of mechanising? I only put forward the view of a layman, but it would seem to me a clearly reasonable deduction to make that if you mechanise your unit you bring it more into accord with modern conditions and by that you make it a more efficient fighting instrument from the modern point of view.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: You make it more mobile.

Brigadier-General NATION: Mechanisation, as far as it has gone at present, is purely in regard to transport. There is no reduction in the number of men excepting as regards drivers.

Mr. JONES: Of course, I cannot possibly presume to pit my knowledge of this matter against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. That would be sheer presumption, and I am not going to do it. As an outsider and a layman, looking at this objectively, all I am saying is it seems to me a logical deduction to make that if you mechanise on a large scale you bring your fighting machine more into accord with modern standards of efficiency from various points of view. If that is conceded, that is the point I want to make. In spite of that, hon. Gentlemen have raised great alarm because a certain number of thousands have been taken off the strength of the Territorial Army. Surely hon. Gentlemen do not put up the claim that in addition to making a unit more efficient on the mechanical side, it should retain the same number of men that it used to have. The introduction of machinery postulates a lesser necessity for the same number of men. When hon. Gentlemen opposite come to discuss other Estimates, such as the Home Office or the Ministry of Labour, or some other Civil Department, they will want to know why
the Government are not introducing mechanical devices in order to do away with the labour of a number of men; yet in regard to the Territorial Force, they want mechanical devices plus the men [HON. MEMBERS "No !"] If hon. Members concede to me that the coming of mechanical forces entitles us to do away with a certain number of men, there is no need—

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The difference is this. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the machines installed are the most up-to-date and therefore encourage efficiency. So far as the Territorial Army is concerned, because the House is unwilling to increase the Vote, largely because of the feelings of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, the machines installed are not of the best and therefore do not increase efficiency to the same extent.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman is changing his ground now. His complaint now is that the mechanisation thats taking place in the Army is not as efficient as he wants it to be. That is for him to argue. My general proposition is that if you mechanise, and to the degree that you mechanise, it ought to justify a reduction in the number of personnel. Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. They cannot retain the full strength of personnel on the old standard of 1925, let us say, and at the same time demand an extended mechanisation.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: Perhaps I can make it clear. The hon. Member is confusing two kinds of mechanisation. Mechanisation in an office is something which increases efficiency and reduces the necessity for man power, but in the Army up to the moment all that mechanisation is being used for is to increase mobility. It has not produced a number of military robots, but it has obtained mobility.

Mr. JONES: It seems to me a logical proposition to deduce from what the bon. Gentleman has said that if you increase the mobility of a force you will require less men. I will not, however, venture where angels have refused to tread. I want to bring the discussion on to another plane, since hitherto perhaps I have been treading on unfamiliar ground. If I were a Member of this Government, I
should feel thoroughly ashamed of this proposition. The Government have in the last 18 months visited the homes of the working classes with the most dire consequences arising from their policy. Let me refer to a Department with which I am fairly well acquainted, and here I can argue on familiar ground. Not many weeks before Christmas there was a great controversy in the land in which Tories, Liberals as well as Labour people took the side against the Government on the question whether we should save £400,000 upon secondary education. Similar demands have been made with regard to unemployment and unemployment benefit, and yet to-night here is an Amendment moved from the Government side of the House by an hon. and gallant Gentleman who, not satisfied with an extra demand on the Estimates for £1,500,000, is demanding an extension of the expenditure of public money upon the Territorial Force.
What is the case for that? It is to allow so many thousands of men to be able to go this year for some 14 days to the seaside or elsewhere. It was stated in the House this afternoon that the mere fact that the Government were not able to have camps last year had an adverse effect upon recruiting, and because of that we are invited to spend £900,000 more. But all that money is not for holiday camps. There are parts of the expenditure which could quite easily be postponed. I challenge the hon. Gentleman who is defending the Vote to deny it. A substantial sum is to be spent on unnecessary buildings.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that buildings come under the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I submit that I am addressing myself to the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is urging an expansion of the provision for the Territorial Army. I am arguing that the provision already made is too much.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member thinks that he is in order, he will no doubt develop his point, but I am not clear at the moment that he is in order. We are not discussing now any particular Vote or the Estimates generally, but the particular Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. JONES: I am devoting myself to a point which other Members have discussed, but I will give way to your Ruling. The point which I want to make is that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment invites the House to demand from the Government increased effort in this direction. My argument as against the Amendment is that the provision which is made is too much. I think that that is related to the point under discussion. We are invited to spend £900,000 upon the development of the Territorial Army. Even this year, in these very Estimates, there is provision for all sorts of things—grants to county associations, payments to county associations for buildings and ranges. Yesterday morning I received from my own constituency, which has not anything approaching a rifle range or a Territorial Association, an invitation from the head of a Territorial Association to be present at a meeting for the purpose, presumably, of erecting a hall for this activity. I ask, What case is there, from the point of view of immediate urgency, either for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the Government's proposal? No one can argue that if we do not proceed with the proposal to spend so many thousands upon these halls the country will be in danger.
We are asked to undertake this expenditure at a time when we have taken £400,000 from secondary school children. I have not worked it out, but I am told that the decrease in the Education Estimates this year comes to an average of 2s. 11d. per child. If anyone suggested to-night that we should steal 2s. 11d. from a child's money-box in order to send somebody else to the seaside it would be at once denounced. The Noble Lord opposite, of course, finds great amuse-merit in that statement. He will go to the seaside in any case, and I have no doubt that he and his friends will find no difficulty about sending their children to secondary schools—Eton or elsewhere. This money is to be found at the expense of depriving secondary school children of the poorer classes of legitimate educational opportunities—a deprivation practised in the name of economy. At the same time hon. Members come to this House demanding expenditure upon a service which, to say the least of it, is not so immediately urgent as all that,
and in these times of national difficulty could very well be left for another year. If hon. Gentlemen will consult the returns they will find that the number of people who attended camps in 1931 was very little less than the number who attended in the previous year—indeed, it was more than in the previous year. The number of men attending camps has not declined substantially in the last eight or 10 years. There is a decrease of a few thousands, but it is almost a negligible figure. All this story about the danger of destroying recruiting is sheer, unadulterated bluff.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I would remind the hon. Member, when he is referring to last year, that such camps as were held were arranged at enormous sacrifice and with tremendous difficulty, and owing to the unusual manner in which barrack facilities, and so on, were placed at the disposal of the Territorials.

Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Member has missed my point. I was not speaking of last year, because I know there were no camps last year, but of 1931, the year when the Labour Government were in office. Taking the year 1931, and going backwards over the previous 10 years, it will be found that the number of people who have attended camps, broadly speaking, and taking things by and large, has remained almost stationary. Last year there were no camps, but in spite of that the report presented to us to-night on' the Territorial Army indicates quite clearly that in the last quarter dealt with there was an increase of 5,000 in the number of the recruits. How can it be argued, therefore, that the fact of there being no camps has destroyed recruiting?
There is substance in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price). He asked, What right have you to expect these people to respond to your recruiting appeals when you have been attacking them along other lines in the name of economy? "After all, those whom you hope to recruit will be mainly members of the working class, sons of the working class, unemployed if you like, full of a sense of injustice, feeling that the Government has, in the name of economy, abused economy in order to attack them
by reducing their unemployment benefits. Surely you cannot expect those same people to say to you generously, "Very good, I will forget all that, I will join up." Of course not. Treat the people decently and you will win their confidence. Treat them in a way that repels them, and they will not extend their confidence to you. In the last 18 months they have been so much attacked through the reduction of the social services that you cannot expect from them the response which enthusiastic recruiters would desire.
I do not pretend to hide my own feelings. I am an unrepentant pacifist, and I make no apology for it. I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment and his colleague who seconded it had found it possible to show a more generous response to the appeal of their own leader, the Lord President of the Council, who told them recently that if we are to get a lead in disarmament in the world, if we are to initiate the spirit of disarmament, that initial effort and inspiration must come from the young people of the world. It is the young people, not the older people who to-night have asked for extra expenditure upon the instruments of armament, at a time when our neighbour across the sea, the French Prime Minister, has actually carried through the Senate in the name of the French nation a reduction in the armed forces of France this year to the tune of £5,000,000. Those who know something about the difficulties that all French Prime Ministers have, will know what a gallant effort that must have involved, yet when France reduces her Army Estimate by £5,000,000, Britain comes forward with an increase of £1,500,000. I say quite clearly, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, that we can have neither part nor lot in this Amendment, and that we shall take the first opportunity we can of challenging it.

9.56 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BLAKER: In rising to take up the challenge which has been thrown down by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) I am conscious of the fact that both inside and outside this House there are many thousands of young men who are quite satisfied and quite proud to endeavour
to fit themselves for the defence of their country. I am satisfied that when we reach the sere and yellow leaf, and presumably the years of discretion at which the hon. Member for Caerphilly has now arrived, we shall at least have the grace and the courtesy to thank those who follow after us and who take up the burden.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the young fellows at Oxford?

Sir R. BLAKER: I do not intend to refer to-night to resolutions passed by young men in other places. Anyone who wishes to make a helpful contribution to a Debate upon the Territorial Army must recognise and accept two facts. The first is that the Territorial Army is to-day a necessary and vital portion of our defence. I am not saying whether we are wise or unwise to have allowed our armaments to sink to a state in which we have to rely upon what I might call the free services of the Territorial Army. The fact has to be admitted. The second point is that no suggestion which can involve an increased expenditure this year is within the realm of practical politics. I am a little surprised to hear from hon. Members opposite that this Amendment is a demand for increased expenditure. We have had enough experience of the difficulties of the War Office, those of us who have tried to obtain grants and have indented for stores that we urgently need, and we know that it is impossible to-day to ask for any increase, however desirable in the name of efficiency that increase may be. If I make observations to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I hope that he will realise that I do so in a constructive rather than in a destructive spirit. The reference by the hon. Gentleman opposite to a trip to the seaside was a slur upon Territorial soldiers who give up their holidays in order to train. I take it as a slur, and I think that many people outside this House will so regard it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I must explain that I was not the first person in this Debate to use the word "holiday." The first was the Financial Secretary himself.

Sir R. BLAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Financial Secretary explained exactly and precisely what
was meant by that word. The sense in which the term "seaside holiday" was hurled across the Floor of the House will be regarded by fair-minded people as a slur upon the serving Territorial soldier. Either we take the attitude that the Territorial Army is not required, in which case it is a criminal waste to expend any money on it, or we must be sure that the money which is spent brings the Territorial Army to the maximum state of efficiency in proportion to the money which is at disposal. I understand that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will have no part or lot in supporting an Amendment which merely calls upon the Government to make this Government service efficient. I must confess that I am a little surprised that an hon. Gentleman with his experience should get up boldly and say that he does not desire one of the public services to be run efficiently, even though it is financed by taxpayers' money.
We know that the absence of camp has been borne with good spirit, as indeed every privation which is placed upon the Territorials will be borne. The decline in recruiting is not entirely due to the absence of camp. In theory, every newly-joined Territorial is entitled to two suits, one new and one part-worn. In practice, it is very difficult, from the stores that are at the disposal of local associations, to provide that new suit, but if we are to give a man a pride in his regiment—we take just as much pride in our volunteer branch as professional soldiers take in their regiments—and a self-respect—I am speaking of that portion of the House that can appreciate those qualities—you must give him a suit of clothes in which he can keep his self-respect.
It is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that a soldier is entitled to give the girls a treat when he walks out, and that is a right and proper thing to do. [Interruption] People often laugh at the recreation of those who work hard all day. I believe that there is more in it than is printed upon picture postcards. I know from time to time that some of us feel that local associations are not entirely able to benefit the units which they have to administer. I put forward this suggestion: In some areas where there are big employers of labour, a representative of a big firm upon an association can be quite a good link between the unit and those who supply its
labour. In the home counties, where you possibly have 83 men drawn from 75 different employers, obviously the main original idea of the nexus between the employer and the soldier has failed. I suggest that if we could have divisional associations rather than county associations, there would be a saving, and I believe that administration would be very much simpler. I know that kit and clothing are questions of great difficulty, but I would remind the Financial Secretary that some of the clothing that is made and issued is apparently designed for a human frame which no doctor would ever recognise. A very small grant per head is allowed for alterations, but it is not a question in many cases of alteration, but of almost entire re-making. I would impress upon the Financial Secretary the vast importance of trying to tighten up the supply of really decent, serviceable kit.
There is another point to which I should like to refer. It is a very small question —so small that some hon. Members may wonder why I raise it; but it is a pinprick, and, as a pinprick, it is all the more dangerous. Many hon. Members know that a statutory deduction is allowed from an officer's earned income of £7 10s. in respect of upkeep of his kit. That is not a vast sum, and it does not involve a vast saving to the Exchequer if it is cut off; but because, and only because, no annual camp was held, and, therefore, no officer drew any pay, that allowance was taken off; but the upkeep of his uniform was demanded just the same. I say quite frankly that I think that that was a mean economy, and one which has done a great deal more harm than good. I do not raise the point because it affects me; it does not. I beg the Financial Secretary to realise that while we in the Territorials are prepared to make the best of a very bad job, yet at the same time we do ask him to do all that he can for us in regard to considering whether some units outside the London area should take part in some form of review, in order to let people know what I say and what I believe, namely, that we are a remarkably fine body of men.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: I must apologise to my hon. Friends who have moved and seconded this Amendment for not having
heard the whole of their speeches. The points raised in the Debate have included some of minor importance, some small points, and one or two of a more general kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir R. Blaker) concluded his remarks by referring again to a question which was dealt with by the Mover, namely, the suggestion that, if there is a review this summer, it should include more than the London units. As I said in my opening speech this afternoon, I can give no further information as regards the review, as no definite decision has yet been taken on the subject; but in any case I feel that it must be of a local character. It can only be held, if at all, in London, and great expense would be entailed in fetching units from all parts of the country, while great difficulties would naturally arise if one unit were to be selected as against another. Much as I should like to make such a review a general review in which all parts of the country and all parts of the Territorial Army would be represented, I think that, if it is held, it will be necessary to confine it, this year at any rate, to the units in the immediate locality.
The Mover also referred to the desirability of the Territorial Army being more represented at the War Office than at present. There are officers at the War Office whose sole duty it is to consider the welfare of the Territorial Army, and there is a member of the Army Council who is to a large extent in charge of the Territorial Army. That is not myself, but the Under-Secretary of State for War. While I am prepared to consider any suggestions for increasing the representation of the Territorial Army at the War Office, I do not really think that there would be any material object to be gained. I do not think that the majority of Territorial officers and men feel that they are suffering under any disability or grievance with regard to administration at headquarters owing to the fact that there is no Territorial officer engaged at the War Office. If such an officer were selected, he would have to give up the whole of his time to the work, and I am not sure that there are many Territorial officers—indeed, it is not in the nature of the Territorial Army that there should be—who would be prepared to give up their
time in that way. There is, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the Director-General of the Territorial Army at the War Office, with his own staff, and his sole concern is with the Territorial Army; while, as I have said, there is a representative to a large extent of the interests of the Territorial Army on the Army Council.
Some reference has been made in the course of the Debate to the new duties which the Territorial Army have recently taken over in regard to coast defences. I am glad to say that the reorganisation which this has necessitated is now practically complete, and training this year will take place on the basis of those new duties, responsibilities and liabilities which the Territorial Army have undertaken. There can be no greater proof of the confidence which the Army Council place in the Territorial Army than that they should have been, as they are now, rendered responsible for the defence of the coasts of this island.
Reference has been made by more than one speaker to the question of the pledge, and I should like to make the situation perfectly plain at once. It is that no decision has been taken, or is likely to be taken in the near future, or, I think, will be taken without those who represent the Territorial Army, that is to say, the Committee of Territorial Associations. They have been asked to give their views, and they have already discussed the matter. They are going to discuss it again, though perhaps not in the immediate future. There is no hurry about the matter, and no danger of any precipitate conclusion being arrived at. They will be given full time to weigh all the pros and cons, the Army Council will certainly listen with the greatest attention to the views which they put forward, and, undoubtedly, the decision will depend upon those views. In any case, should the alteration suggested take place, it would affect only those joining in future; there is no question of extending it retrospectively to those who are now members of the Territorial Army.
I would like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no intention whatever of rendering the Territorial Army a mere drafting unit for the Regular Army; that has been expressly denied over and over again. If the
arrangement is agreed to finally, it will alter the present position, under which men join the Territorial Army solely in order, in an emergency, to enable the authorities to do what is almost inevitable in a great crisis such as a war, and that is to move from one unit to another a certain few members of any Force. The intention is that the Territorial Army shall continue to act as in the past, and, if it should be sent abroad in the event of war, it will be as units serving as such. But anyone who knows anything of the organisation knows that it is inevitable that limits of this sort placed by legislation on those responsible for the administration can only lead to great difficulty. If it is thought that any alteration would adversely affect the requirements of the force, no such alteration will be made. My hon. Friend can rest assured that no alteration will be made in a hurry, it will not be made without the very care-fullest consideration and will not be made without the consent of those who represent the interests which will be principally affected.
I should like to reiterate the protest that the last speaker made against the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) referring to the annual training of the Territorials as a holiday camp. I was the first to use the expression "holiday," but I made it perfectly plain that I wily used it when I urged employers of labour to grant their employés a holiday in order to go to camp. It is not a holiday for the men when they get there. It is very wrong, when people are prepared to give up the short and all too hard-earned holidays that they get in the year to making themselves fit to serve their country in an emergency, that they should be taunted with the fact that they are having an easy holiday. It is idle for the hon. Gentleman to attempt to argue that the decision to give up camps last year had no effect. I am surprised that so experienced a Parliamentary speaker and so fair a debater should have the unfairness or the lack of good sense to descend to such an argument. How can he maintain that proposition when the universal testimony of every single person who knows anything about the Territorial Army, from the lowest to the highest ranks, is unanimous in considering that this is the sole
reason why recruiting has gone down? The hon. Member pointed to the fact that recruiting this autumn was slightly higher than it was last year. That is simply due to the fact that last autumn people were already aware that peat cuts would be made in Army expenditure, and they felt it more than probable that camps would not take place this year, whereas in every answer that I have given to questions during the past year I made it as plain as I could, until I got ultimate authority, that it was the intention of the Army Council, if possible, to hold camps during the present year, and that is why recruiting went up in the autumn.
The Secretary of State stated some time in the autumn, in the strongest language he possibly could without having the authority of the Government to say that camps would take place, that everything he could do would he done in order to ensure that camps would take place. Recruiting immediately went up, and yet the hon. Gentleman assures us that the two matters were quite unconnected with one another. I really think that for the moment his enthusiasm in the cause of peace must have run away with him. He says with pride that he is a pacifist. I maintain that I am as good a pacifist as he is. If to be a pacifist;s to consider war as the greatest disaster that can befall the world, to believe that any effort that one can make to secure the influence of peace is the most valuable effort one could make, then I am as good a pacifist as he is. But I do not believe, although I give him full credit for his belief, that you secure the cause of peace by asserting loudly that in no possible circumstances will you he prepared to fight, and if he takes the view that it is not necessary to defend yourself in a world which has not been made safe from war, I should like to have heard him argue the case that he put forward.
Hon. Members opposite throughout the Debate have talked vaguely about disarmament, but not one of them has made a single sensible suggestion as to how we should benefit either the world or this country by diminishing our Army. If he had wished to argue that case he might have said he did not consider that the Territorial Army was an Army which a nation that loved peace could maintain. He might have argued that we should spend all our energy on strengthening
the Regular Army at the expense of the Territorial Army and cut down expenditure in that way and that that would in some way reassure the other nations of the world that we had no intention to go to war. That would at least have been an argument, although it is not my view. It seems to me that the Territorial Army is one of the least provocative armies in the world. It is an army of private citizens, an army of people who are prepared, for the love they bear their country, to give up a great deal of their leisure to prepare themselves for its defence in an emergency. They are now entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the shores of their own country.
If it is maintained that it is a provocative force and a menace to the peace of the world, then I should like to hear hon. Members opposite attempt to develop that argument instead of simply coming down and waving the flag—there is no more provocative flag in the world—of the extreme pacifist and denouncing

the Territorial Army and advocating the abolition of camps which would undoubtedly lead to the complete destruction of that force. We have had the great assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment and of the hon. Members who supported it. Their suggestions with regard to what we can do in the way of improving the Territorial Army will be borne in mind by the War Office and those responsible. I hope that this part of the Debate may lead to some fruitful result for the Territorial Army, as the early part of it may have led to some fruitful result for the Regular Army.

Captain WATT: In view of the reply of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 33.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[10.23 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookthank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knebworth, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knox, Sir Alfred


Apsiey, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J, C. C.
Law, Sir Alfred


Aske. Sir Robert William
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Dickie, John P.
Leckie, J. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Drewe, Cedric
Leighton, Major B. E. P,


Atkinson, Cyril
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Little, Graham-, sir Ernest


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat Fraser, James Alexander


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Mabane. William


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Benn. Sir Arthur Shirley
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bernays, Robert
Foot. Dingle (Dundee)
McCorquodaie, M. S.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gledhill. Gilbert
McKeag, William


Borodaie, Viscount
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjorie
Magnay, Thomas


Brown,Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burghley, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro, W.)
Mailaileu, Edward Lancelot


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Martin, Thomas B.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hamilton, Sir George (Illord)
May how, Lieut.-Colonel John


Carver, Major William H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harbord, Arthur
Milne, Charles


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hartland, George A.
Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Christie, James Archibald
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, Robert H.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, Austin
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hornby, Frank
Munro, Patrick


Colman, N. C. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Colviile, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Conant, R. J, E.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywoed & Radcliffe)
North, Captain Edward T.


Cook, Thomas A.
Jamieson, Douglas
Nunn, William


Cooper, A. Duff
Janner, Barnett
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Copeland, Ida
Jennings, Roland
Palmer. Francis Noel


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pearson, William G.


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peat. Charles U.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Penny, Sir George


Crooke. J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Petherick, M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Pike, Cecil F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Shaw. Helen B. (Lanark, Bothweli)
Train, John


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Slater, John
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ray, Sir William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Soper, Richard
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stevenson, James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stones, James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ross. Ronald D.
Strauss, Edward A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton



Rutherford. Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Templeton. William P.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Salt, Edward W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thompson, Luke



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards. Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Mliner, Major James


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilliy)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Kirk wood, David
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cove, William G.
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianeily)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lieweilyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Dun Valley)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McGovern, John
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Croves.


Resolution agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,700, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

10.31 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I want on this Vote to raise once more a matter of considerable importance—namely, the number of officers in the medical service, and I hope the Committee will allow me to mention the subject and ask for a reply. The number of medical officers in the Army is always very much below establishment. I have raised this question now regularly every other year for the last 14 years without getting any satisfaction, and I think it essential to bring the matter before the Committee again as the medical service provides what is necessary for the army in peace and in war time. Whatever our views may be in regard to war and peace it is most essential to keep the medical service intact and efficient. The medical service has been working on a deficiency
in establishment strength for years, and the position is just as serious as ever this year. The total establishment of medical officers required for the Army on the Home establishment is 826 and the actual number on the strength is 669; a deficiency of 154 medical officers, or a deficiency of 35 per cent. That is not made up by temporary commissioned officers who are employed, 48; and by retired officers employed, 54.
The position is more serious than the, actual numbers suggest. The work is only kept up by having two-thirds of the officers serving abroad. The percentage of majors, captains and lieutenants at home is 42 and abroad 58, and the period at home is only about two years. As soon as they come back from service abroad they have only two years at home before having to go abroad again. That is partly the reason why you cannot get officers into the Army Medical Service. They know that when they marry they will have to spend the greater part of their time abroad, because the War Office is able to fill up the positions at home by temporary commissioned officers, and they cannot get temporary commissioned officers to go abroad. That becomes worse and worse every year. The result is that the War Office cannot get young medical officers into the service. It is,
becoming more and more an old service, a service of old men. This position was definitely recognised in 1931. At that time a memorandum on the health of the Army stated:
 The number of new officer entrants in the Royal Army Medical Corps and its supplementary Reserve, which has been most unsatisfactory since the Great War, has fallen still lower during the past year, and the deficiency of regular officers is causing grave concern.
When the matter was discussed in this House the Financial Secretary to the War Office said that all were agreed that this was a very serious matter, and he added that several of his predecessors at the War Office had been concerned about it. That has been the case. In 1920 I made a speech on the subject and the then Secretary for War, now the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), treated it as if it were a jest. He said that I thought more about the sanitation of the Army than about its efficiency. Now the War Office does recognise that the medical services are vital to the efficiency of the Army. It was admitted that the deficiency in officers affected not only the War Office, but also the Admiralty and the Air Force, and it was added that an inter-Departmental Committee between the three services was being set up with the object of finding some solution of the problem. That was two years ago.
The committee has been sitting under Sir Warren Fisher. It is not the first time that Sir Warren Fisher has sat on a committee on this subject. He was chairman of a committee in 1925 and that committee reported. He sat again on a committee in 1931. I myself gave evidence before that committee 15 months ago, and now we hear that the committee is proceeding to consider its report. Evidently no solution of the problem has been found, or the report is being delayed because the committee cannot face the solution that is necessary. Therefore we shall not get any further forward, and each Secretary for War will say in turn: "It is a serious problem, but we cannot meet because it is mainly a financial question." I hope for something better than that. I have made several suggestions and so have the Briteish Medical Association. I want a statement from the Financial Secretary, not simply that he is waiting for the com
mittee's report, the contents of which he probably knows, but that he will put it to the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the health services are essential to the Army and that we cannot face the possibility of another war with depleted services.

10.40 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: I must apologise for intervening again in these discussions. but I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a short time while I turn once more to the question of the strength of the Territorial forces. I regret very much that I was not called in the discussion on the Amendment referring to the Territorial Army and I take this opportunity of raising the subject again. It has been said that the loss in numbers has been mainly due to the question of camps, but while I think that to a certain extent it is due to that, it is by no means the only reason. There are other reasons which are important. In the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates the Secretary of State says that the relations between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army are improving and in a speech made by the Director-General of the Territorial Forces about last December—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that we cannot have repeated in Committee, speeches which would be more applicable to a question which has just been disposed of by the House.

Brigadier-General NATION: I was only mentioning those matters to the extent of proving that there are other reasons for the fall in these numbers. The numbers in the Territorial forces have considerably reduced during recent months and this is to be observed particularly in regard to the London divisions. These divisions are down to 5,000 each, only about half the numbers in divisions in other parts of the country. It is a very serious reduction, and this has nothing whatever to do with camps.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Has Vote A anything to do with the Territorial Army?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is coming on to it. Have patience.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber that while a pretty wide discussion is allowed on Vote A the objection to the speech which I think he proposes to make, is that it would be more appropriate to a question which has just been disposed of and cannot be re-debated in Committee.

Brigadier-General NATION: I accept your Ruling and will reserve my remarks to a further discussion.

10.43 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I wish to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if we can be assured a little more in regard to cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis and whether any special medical officer has been detached from duty to investigate this serious matter. I am glad to see that the number of cases has been reduced since last year, but 67 cases in the Home Commands is a very serious number. I would ask in what units these cases have occurred. I understand that they have been confined to a few units, but, where they have occurred, the effects have been serious. Has any special staff been investigating these cases? Have they tried to get the latest remedies? Some of the troops, I am told, are a little doubtful about the effect of the inoculation or vaccination or whatever treatment has been used to counteract this terrible and painful malady.
I would ask whether any of our medical officers have consulted medical officers in the Dominions. I hear that during the War the commanding officer of a Canadian regiment stamped out this most terrible disease by giving more blankets round to the men and by nailing the windows open, so that they were living practically in the open air. I believe that many of the medical officers in other parts of the world hold that this disease is spread by keeping men in the same barracks and using the same blankets. Will my hon. Friend inquire whether it would be possible to take the opinion of other nations and to find out if, by changing the men's quarters, abandoning barracks, at any rate for a. considerable period, and taking the men right away from where this disease may be, there is a likelihood of stamping it out.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that I will not speak with any undue levity of the important question which he has raised, although I am afraid I am unable to give him a much more satisfactory reply than the right lion. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) gave him on the occasion to which he referred. It is a very serious question, this question of obtaining sufficient recruits for the Royal Army Medical Corps, and we have been considering it for a long time. The committee which was set up, as he said, some few years ago to go into the matter was much impressed by the evidence that he gave. I confess that the work of that committee may have slackened about a year ago, when, owing to financial conditions, there seemed to be very little prospect of obtaining funds for anything, even for so good a cause as this, and it was considered that there was no way of obtaining these recruits except by increased expenditure.
I know my hon. Friend has his own suggestions, which I understand and which I have studied, and I think that if they could be brought into force, which would need a great deal of collaboration with local authorities, they might overcome the difficulty. That committee, which was never dissolved, but which suspended its activities for a short space of time, partly owing to the cause which I have already mentioned and partly owing to the many responsibilities then resting upon Sir Warren Fisher, has now resumed its sittings, and is actively pursuing its inquiries with a view to finding a solution of this question. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is really now under close consideration and that we hope that some solution will be arrived at in the very near future.
With regard to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston), this matter also is one of great importance, and we are fully alive to the importance of the health of the troops. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I will quote, not the right hon. Member for Epping, but a former Prime Minister, Mr. Disraeli, who said the motto of the age should be:
" Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas."
The health of the troops is a matter of deep concern at present. With regard to cerebro-spinal meningitis, the figures this year, although still giving cause for great anxiety, are falling off. The number of cases for the past year was 67, out of which number 26 proved fatal. That is a remarkably low figure for fatal cases. We are doing all that we can to keep in touch with all the latest developments of science, both in this country and in foreign countries, with regard to this disease, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything that we can do in the endeavour to lessen it, we shall do.

Orders of the Day — PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.

Resolved,
 That a sum, not exceeding £9,284,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of 'March, 1934.

Orders of the Day — WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £2,640,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

10.51 p.m.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: There is one comparatively small point on Vote 10 on which I would like to ask for some further information. Item 11 of Sub-head (C) provides for a sum of £500 this year as part of a total Estimate of £42,000 which it is proposed to expend to provide 72 quarters for married warrant officers, non - commissioned officers and men at St. John's Wood Artillery Barracks. I understand that these quarters are to provide not only for the married strength of the artillery units quartered in the barracks, but also to some extent for the married strength of the Household Cavalry regiment quartered at Albany Street Barracks. I fully appreciate the difficulty of my hon. Friend in having to find adequate married quarters throughout the whole
of the London area for the troops. On the other hand, I consider that the present system, especially as regards these particular barracks, is far from satisfactory. The position is that, over and above the accommodation that is required in those particular barracks, it was found some time ago that more accommodation was required. Consequently, in 1919 the War Department took over 16 houses in a street called Queen's Terrace, N.W.S, and in those particular houses were a number of residents who were protected by certain legislation.
The Committee will no doubt agree that the occupation of premises both by soldiers, who come under military discipline, and at the same time by civilians, who come under no such restraint, is a very unsatisfactory situation. The endless difficulties which arose during the War with regard to billets, as many hon. Members will no doubt recollect, have proved that conclusively. Numerous complaints are being made all the time. There are petty squabbles, which I have not attempted to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend, but which have been brought to my notice during the last nine months, all of which I consider to be directly attributable to this particular system. I agree we cannot achieve very much with a matter of £500 this year, and I must apologise to the Committee for having taken up this brief moment in discussing this small sum, but I would point out that there is a, total sum of £42,000 for this Estimate. Consequently, in view of the information which I have been able to give my hon. Friend, I should like to know what he intends to do in order to tackle this little problem. It may be little, but unfortunately it is a distinct problem. I should deprecate what might appear to be a very simple solution, that is, the ejection of the few remaining of my civilian constituents from these houses that were taken over by the War Office.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is concerned with the action of the War Office in taking over certain buildings in the neighbourhood of Albany Barracks to serve as married quarters. Some of them are occupied by civilians and, as he says, some of these do not get on very well
with the soldiers. Possibly they would not get on very well if the houses were only occupied by civilians. I imagine that the small sum concerned here is in the nature of a token Vote to enable us to spend what money we can in order to recondition these houses to make them suitable for married quarters for the troops in London, not only for the cavalry, but all the troops in London which are suffering from the great shortage of married quarters. As the rents fall in, and as the civilian occupants who are inhabiting the houses decide to take their habitations elsewhere, we shall be glad to do what we can to make these buildings, which are in a poor condition, more suitable to serve as married quarters for the troops.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,
 That a sum, not exceeding £911,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON EFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
 That a sum, not exceeding £3,524,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £4,473,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment '' during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

10.59 p.m.

Sir J. NALL: I should like to raise the subject of the Estimates and the Estimates Committee. The Financial Secretary, responding earlier to-day to what was said by certain hon. Members,
indicated that, in the view of his Department, it was entirely unnecessary for any sort of detailed scrutiny of these Estimates in the House. I venture to say that that is not in accordance with the facts, because we have an Estimates Committee of the House whose duty it is from time to time to examine various departmental Estimates. It is some years since I raised in the House the question of providing an adequate system of Estimates Committees so that Votes of this kind could be examined in proper detail by a Committee of the House.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the question which the hon. Member is raising is rather too wide to be raised on a special Vote. Obviously, it is a question which applies to all of them, and not to any one of them.

Sir J. NALL: I will limit my reply accordingly. The particular Vote before us is essentially one which ought to be scrutinised in more detail than time now permits. It is to be hoped that the Government will further consider the question of giving hon. Members an adequate opportunity to consider these Votes in proper detail before they are submitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
 That a sum, not exceeding £227,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

REPORT [7TH MARCH.]

Resolution reported.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £166,570, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants
in Aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant in Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers."

Orders of the Day — VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords].

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.4 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I rise to move the rejection of the Bill, firstly because the Debate which was taking place on the most important Clause on the Report stage was closured by the Government in the middle of a most interesting speech by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), and the House had no opportunity to debate fully what is considered to be a very important matter indeed by a great many people who know something of the law. I want to deal particularly with the speech of the learned Solicitor-General on the last occasion, He admitted that this is a matter of profound importance, and also that it makes an exception to what has hitherto been the law as regards habeas corpus. The importance which he attaches to it is not the importance of the infringement of the Habeas Corpus Act, but the importance from what he called, I think, the constitutional point of view, as regards the position of the Dominions vis-a-vis this country. He argued that there had been very few cases where the writ of habeas corpus had been used in this country as regards naval or military courts-martial within the last century. It is true that there are very few such cases reported in the books, but it does not seem to me that that is a very good argument. It reminds one rather of the argument "because it was only a little one."
The fact of infringements of this sort upon the liberty of the subject is none the less serious because the writ of habeas corpus has not been used frequently in this kind of proceeding. It is, indeed, the restraining power of some over-riding prerogative writ of this sort
that renders people very careful in the procedure of court-martial, and the value of it is very largely the fact that it exists, rather than the fact that it has constantly to be used. The hon. and learned Gentleman put what he conceived to be the real principle in these words:
 The propriety of acceding to the request of the self-governing Dominions, whose constitutional status, after all, is recognised rather than granted by the Statute of Westminster, that the same privileges should be accorded to their visiting forces as are by. the comity of nations accorded as between Sovereign States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1933; col. 1123, Vol. 275.]
That is the statement which, with the permission of the House, I want to examine. In my submission, such an argument can only arise from a fundamental misconception of the legal position. First of all, one has to examine what is the comity of nations. That is the first step in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. If I take his own quotation from Chief Justice Marshall of the United States, given in column 1124 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, though I do not agree that it is a statement that meets with universal acceptance, the point which is there stressed is that a Sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction when he allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his Dominions. That is dealing with a matter quite different from the matter with which this present Bill is dealing. That is dealing with the question of the right of free passage of armed forces, when they are passing through a country on their way from their own country to some other country upon the other side.
That, naturally, is a thing that has never occurred, and never could occur, in this country, so long as we are an island. Therefore it could not have become, in this country, at any rate, a part of any accepted practice. The other case which he cites is the case of a ship. The position as regards a ship of war is, of course, entirely different. A ship of war is deemed to be foreign territory altogether, and is not dealt with as part of the territory within the jurisdiction of this country. The matter which he cites was the position of our own troops in France, during the Great War. That, of course, was a time of war, and of martial law, and the position, as he himself states later, was entirely different.
He emphasised the point that we did not then require any law in order to regularise the position.
The position here is that we do require law, and that is why this Bill is being passed into law. The question before the House is whether, in enacting that law, it is intended to insert a term to preserve the right to the writ of habeas corpus, or whether it is intended to insert the term, as it stands at present, to take away that right. Let me assume that, even in the case of visiting forces who have not been granted a right of passage through the country, there were some international law which took them out of the territorial jurisdiction of the country in which they found themselves. In that case, according to our domestic law in this country, that would not be the domestic law unless it could be found that it had been expressly adopted, either by legislation, or by the decisions of the courts, or by a long course of customary usage. None of these pertains as regards this country.
There is no example, in any of the books of domestic law in this country that I have been able to find, of any such provision that the writ of habeas corpus does not run as against foreign forces resident or visiting here. I have looked to see whether there is any such principle laid down in any of the standard books of law, and I have been unable to find it; and, in my submission to the House, it is wholly wrong to suggest that our courts could hold at the present moment that it was part of our Common Law that the writ of habeas corpus does not run in the case of a foreign soldier visiting this country.
But the real basis of the fallacy which lies behind the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that he is treating the Dominions as if they were foreign countries. He said, in his speech to the House, that the Dominions did not wish to be regarded as foreign countries, and then he went on to say that we have already accorded them constitutional status in many respects indistinguishable from that which foreign States enjoy. He seems to have overlooked the fact that there is one vital and important difference—common allegiance to a single Crown. I hear that he knows that, but he does not seem to have regarded it in his argument. The whole of his argu-
ment was based on foreign sovereignty, that is to say, two different sovereignties, the one sovereign in this country giving some special privilege by virtue of the position of another sovereign who is not within his jurisdiction. So far as the Dominions are concerned, how can any question of foreign sovereignty arise at all? I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman treating so lightly and as so unimportant a factor this fundamental principle—what one might call the very linchpin of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I should like to know whether he suggests taking the true analogy that the High Commissioners of the Dominions are entitled to ambassadorial privilege, because that is precisely the same position. I venture to suggest that it will indeed be a new theory of law if the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the High Commissioners are entitled, by virtue of something akin to foreign sovereignty, to exemption from the domestic law of this country. The truth is that none of the attributes of foreign sovereignty upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman based himself in his argument is present when one comes to consider the question of Dominion status and the British Commonwealth's Constitution.
There can be no analogy between the Dominions and foreign countries upon this vital point. Indeed, if the hon. and learned Gentleman really puts this forward as his argument, it means that he is doing away with one of the conceptions that keep the British Commonwealth of Nations together. He is in fact saying that there is no more in the unity of the Crown than there is between us and any foreign country. It is a curious thing if we are going to treat our fellow British subjects from the Dominions worse than foreigners and in a way that makes them foreigners with a vengeance from a legal point of view. The constitutional point that he has raised in this way, I agree, is one of profound importance and one which, I think, would finally bring to an end the British Commonwealth of Nations if it were insisted upon. But I regard the point as regards the liberty of the subject as one that is equally important. I am surprised to find the Tory party not only the protagonists of the cutting down of the age long right of habeas corpus but of an argument that says there is
nothing in our common sovereignty of the British Commonwealth of Nations and that we are indeed to treat them, not only in spirit but in law, as being under a foreign Sovereign. I ask the House not to show themselves so careless of these two great principles which are now involved just because it may be convenient for the commanding officer of some visiting forces from the Dominions to have rather greater freedom as regards courts-martial than he would have if he were a subject of this country. As we have no other effective way of protesting against this action by the Government, we shall feel it our duty to vote against the Third Reading.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: This matter has by now been very fully debated, not, I regret to say, from the Front Bench but from all other quarters of the House, and I certainly should not have risen at this time of night if it had not been for the rather peremptory manner in which the Government brought the Debate to an end when last the matter was before the House. There has been a most extraordinary consensus of opinion not only in legal circles, but amongst all Members of both Houses of Parliament, not that this is a Bill that is entirely unnecessary and wrong, but that certain effects of the Bill are not only unnecessary but actually wrong and harmful. The Solicitor-General, when last he addressed the House on the matter, seemed to try to have it both ways. At one moment he said it was a matter of profound importance, and the next minute he said there was practically nothing in it at all. Yet it is on this matter, although there was such a consensus of opinion against the Government, that the Government thought fit to apply the Closure. I am not going over all the old arguments which have been submitted by persons much more learned than myself. I am only going to say what is sufficient for the sake of the merest clarity. The position in this country at present is that there is no appeal from the military courts to the civil courts in the ordinary sense of the word "appeal," which means, I take it, the right of obtaining either a a new trial by the first court, or else a complete re-hearing by the second court. There is merely that very limited right of
review by the Judge Advocate-General. Therefore there is no question at all here on the part of myself and my hon. Friends who think like me of interfering with the discipline of the forces. It is merely an attempt to exercise some sort of control over the persons who exercise inferior jurisdictions with a view to seeing that they do not exceed those jurisdictions and overstep the powers which have been given to them by Parliament. I thought it a singularly unfair use of the word "appeal" by the Financial Secretary to the War Office when last he spoke on this matter and suggested that those who were opposing the Bill were attempting to meddle in some way with the administration of discipline. He said:
 The difficulty of making the change suggested in this Bill, to give the soldier the right of appeal to the civil courts in this country, is that it would go against the whole spirit of the Statute of Westminster to allow our civil courts to interfere with the discipline of Dominion troops, and if similar legislation was introduced in the Dominions it would obviously give great concern to our military authorities if they thought that our troops in the Dominions could appeal to the Dominions civil courts against a decision of the military authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1933; cols. 735 and 736, Vol. 274.]
In the first place it is not suggested that there should be any such appeal, and in the second place it rather looks as if the Financial Secretary to the War Office was unable to trust the Dominion courts since he expressed such very grave doubts as to whether our military authorities will approve of their supervision. The point is that the moment the military court exceeds its jurisdiction and does something which the law of the land does not permit it to do, the civil courts can come in and make the whole process void. I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said. He opposed the very justifiable boast of the Solicitor-General that there had been no successful recourse to the process of habeas corpus, I think he said, for 50 years. Is not the reason why there has been no such successful application precisely that there always was this controlling power of the courts behind the exercise of this jurisdiction? It has been said again and again by the Solicitor-General in the course of his now numerous speeches on this matter that this point is not really a serious matter,
because it will never arise. I submit that, if this thing is bad in principle, it ought not to be allowed by this House merely because the area over which it will work is a small one. If it is bad in principle, we ought to stop it now. Certainly many people, not only in this House, but in another place, have regarded this matter as vitally affecting the liberty of at least a small section of British citizens. As Lord Buckmaster put it so eloquently, it is of the utmost importance that courts entrusted with these solemn powers—powers of life or death in some cases—over the liberty and lives of the people whom they have to judge should know that beyond them there is a power that can restrain any excessive use of the jurisdiction or any overstepping of the powers conferred by this House. If this control is relinquished—military officers are only human—irregularities will creep in, in the course of time.
The Solicitor-General ended up his speech by saying that it was a very small infraction of the principle underlying habeas corpus. In my submission there can be absolutely no reason why this House should not take notice of it if it is in fact a pernicious variation of that principle. He also said that the Dominions have asked for this thing, therefore we ought to let them have it, because we have given practically everything else we had to give them. I could understand the argument, which might be put forward with decency, that if the Dominions request us to barter away the rights of their own soldiers, we ought to do it, but I should very much like to hear a justification by the Government of the action of bartering away the rights of our soldiers who happen to visit the Dominions, just because the Dominions ask us to do it. What next shall we do at the dictation of Canberra, Ottawa and Capetown?
There is another matter of importance, and it is this, that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to curtail the liberty of the subject. If that is to be done, I say to those who introduce such a measure to the House: "Do it openly and frankly." Do not come here first of all and say: "We are doing nothing of the sort," and afterwards, when there is very considerable pressure from all parts of the House, say: "Well, perhaps we are doing it, but we are only doing it in
such a small way." May. I, without, hope, any undue violence of words, say that the Government have exhibited a smugness which is only comparable to that of a blancmange at supper on a cold winter's night. They have gone in the face of the very highest legal authority both in this House 'and outside. They have said: "You are wrong and we are right; in any case it is only a small matter." The Solicitor-General always ends up with the statement that it is a little matter. The fact is that it is a very serious and vital matter. He made a cheap debating point by chiding my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol for not being here on Second Reading or being silent when he was here. Let me say a few words to the Members of the ruling party. There was a notice in one of the chief newspapers not long ago which said that a new bird had been 'added to the Zoo—the "processionary bird". This bird, announced the notice, without intending to be funny in the slightest, had as its only characteristic that of being able and willing to follow any of its species, in single file, without any apparent object and without any limit as to time.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Liberal party.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I regard it as a great compliment that 'anyone should think that the Liberal party had always followed either its leader or anyone else. What I am asking is this: is the great Conservative party merely to follow round the Division Lobbies without exercising any judgment, or follow the lead of those hon. Members who have spoken so well and forcibly on this subject? I am suggesting that Members of the Conservative party should not be content to follow a lead through the Division lobbies which they know to be wrong. I do not believe that they are incapable of understanding the position for themselves, and I suggest that they should rise up in their wrath against the Government in this matter and march through the Division Lobby against this Bill, which has such a pernicious effect upon the liberties of some of His Majesty's subjects.

11.31 p.m.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I am grateful to the hon.
Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) for one reference which he made, and that was to the numerous speeches I have had to make on this subject. I do not know about the sweet at the hon. Member's Sunday supper, to which he alluded, but I do know that this is the fourth time that this particular hash has appeared on the table of the House, and this is the fourth time I have addressed it on the matter. I really must ask the House once more to look at this matter in what I believe to be the true perspective. Who are the people about whom we are talking? We are talking about detachments of the forces raised and paid by the self-governing Dominions, who would be in this country at our invitation for some special occasion. With a little imagination we may suppose that it is not unlikely that on such an occasion the Dominion concerned would send us its best men; they would be here because they were the outstanding men in their regiments, everyone of whom would be, as it were, pledged to uphold the honour of the Dominion while in this country. I cannot imagine that there is any likelihood of a court martial at all, still less of there being any necessity for habeas corpus proceedings. It is said that it is only because there is the threat of habeas corpus proceedings that you can make these people careful to try their men properly. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) repeated that argument to-day. On the previous occasion he put it even more strongly. He said that it would be a temptation to ignore all the rules and to conduct their proceedings in a slap-dash way; a somewhat unworthy reflection on the officers of the self-governing Dominions. I have already reminded the House that no one in our lifetime has had an opportunity of judging the effect on officers in the Dominions or in this country of the threat of habeas corpus because no such case has occurred. But let me call the attention of the hon. and learned Member to this, that any single officer who is concerned in deliberately ignoring the rules and conducting court martial proceedings in a slap-dash way is amenable to the courts of his own country and if he is a party to sending a man to prison wrongfully he would be liable to civil damages for false imprisonment.
If we are going to talk about safeguards the fact that a person is liable for heavy damages is a much more effective safeguard than this somewhat impersonal threat of habeas corpus which has never been invoked in our lifetime. But these arguments are in my view of less importance than what I consider is the big constitutional argument on this matter.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol told us that no question of international comity arises here, that it is a purely domestic matter, that we are dealing with people who, because they are resident in this country, have got an absolute right to habeas corpus proceedings, and all the rest of it. He said that the quotation which I gave from Chief Justice Marshall could never apply in this country at all. I shall not read it again. The point was that the American Chief Justice of over a hundred years ago said that, where free passage was granted to troops, the Sovereign who had invited foreign troops into his State was taken to have waived jurisdiction over them. He said that it could not occur here. Of course, it can occur. It occurs every time a foreign ship comes into our ports. It occurred when the American troops came to this country on passage to France, and it could occur every time a foreign detachment comes over to us to take part in a review or demonstration or anything of that sort. He said there was no such thing as the immunity of foreign troops from habeas corpus. He invited me to give him any quotation from the text-books about it. He said that he had read all those books. I can only say that I have read very carefully both in Hall and Oppenheim—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I said a quotation in a book of domestic law. Both of those books are on international law.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: But the hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that anything which is recognised as being the accepted international law is part of the common law of this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS: No.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have taken the trouble to verify the references. I find there is authority for my contention not very long ago in a decision in the House of Lords, and I am content to
leave it at that. But let me come to the text writers. I will give two quotations. Hall, who is one of the recognised authorities on international law, after referring to the fact that very often agreements are made and that these things are the subject of conventions, says:
 It is believed that the commanders, not only of forces in transit through a friendly country with which no convention exists, but also of forces stationed there, assert exclusive jurisdiction in principle in respect of offences committee by persons under their command, though they may be willing as a matter of concession to hand over culprits to the civil power when they have confidence in the courts, and when their stay is likely to be long enough to allow of the case being watched.
With regard to foreign warships visiting our ports the writer to whom I have referred, after saying that they have complete immunity states in a footnote and it is in the part of the book that refers to Chief Justice Marshall's judgment:
 Nor, of course, will a writ of habeas corpusissued by the local court run upon a foreign man-of-war, or upon a prize lawfully brought into a neutral port.
And then he gives the authority for it. But when we are told, as we are told by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there is no analogy between this sort of thing and immunity given to a Dominion, that by bringing forward this Bill we are doing away with the one conception which keeps the British Commonwealth of Nations together, and that we are trying finally to bring to an end the British Commonwealth of Nations, I really do take grave exception to his statement. The hon. and learned Gentleman on the last occasion said that this matter had been settled at what he was pleased to call "some convention or some meeting," when this matter was arranged between the Dominions as a matter of convenience between the naval and military experts. I have taken pains to find out how this matter did arise. There was an Imperial Conference in 1926, and as a result of that the matter was referred to a committee which was to report on the operation of Dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation, and I fins that the British representatives on that committee were the right hon. Lord Passfield, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, Sir William Jowitt, then His Majesty's Attorney-General, the Treasury Solicitor and the legal advisers of various Government departments including the
Board of Trade. Canada was represented by the Minister of Justice and various other authoritative representatives and so on, through the other Dominions. After considerable deliberation they issued a report in the end of 1929. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol was not then interested in the government of the country—of which Government he afterwards became so distinguished a member. However, the report was issued. It dealt with the extraterritorial operation of Dominion legislation and recommended a clause in the exact words in which it eventually took shape in what is now Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster which declares and enacts that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. The committee, further, reported as follows:
 In connection with the exercise of extra-territorial legislative powers, we consider that provision should be made for the customary extra-territorial immunities with regard to internal discipline enjoyed by the armed forces of one Government when present in the territory of another Government with the consent of the latter.
hope the House notes the words which the then Attorney-General sanctioned: "The customary extra-territorial immunities", which, according to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, apparently, exist only in my imagination.
 Such an arrangement would be of mutual advantage and common convenience to all parts of the Commonwealth, and we recommend that provision should be made by each member of the Commonwealth to give effect to such customary extra-territorial immunities—
again I ask hon. Members to note those words—
 within its territory, as regards other Members of the Commonwealth.
That report was issued in December, 1929. The matter, apparently, was still more closely investigated, and eventually came up at a time when the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol had, I think, assumed the office which he adorned for some time—I say that with perfect sincerity. In November, 1930, the matter came, not before "some meeting or convention" but before the Prime Ministers and heads of delegations present at the Imperial Conference of 1930, and it was then decided to put on a statutory basis, this recommendation which the committees had put forward.
Will the House note that at that time there is a perfectly good precedent for the form that the statutory basis should take, because during the presence of the American troops in this country, although for a time the matter was left to "the customary extra-territorial immunities", it was found necessary—obviously when an enormous number of troops were quartered here, they were not confined to barracks, or within their lines the whole of the time—to regularise their position more exactly.
Legislation was passed through Order in Council, and verbally that legislation took almost exactly the form of the legislation which we are now discussing, so that when it was decided to put this matter on a statutory basis, they had this very precedent in front of them. That is the bargain- which we are carrying out, not a thing settled in some hole and corner way between a few naval and military experts, but the deliberate wish of an Imperial Conference, deliberately considered for years, and decided upon in 1930. I really suggest to the House of Commons that all this question about the theoretical invasion of habeas corpus fades into insignificance when it is seen that that is the real issue that we are discussing.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I want—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"]—I shall not keep the House long, but I want some of those hon. Members behind me to be disabused of the idea that the objection to this Bill comes purely from the Opposition or from a Liberal source. The first Member of this House to call attention in this House to the objections to this Bill was a very learned Member of the Conservative party, the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), and in the course of the Debates in both Houses, I believe I am right in saying, there has not been a single legal opinion, except that of the official Government speakers, expressed on behalf of this Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Does the hon. Member recognise the authority of the Secretary of State for War, who happens to be an ex-Lord Chancellor?

Mr. GRIFFITH: If the learned Solicitor-General would pay me the compliment
of noticing what I said, instead of putting other words in my mouth, he would have noticed that I said "except official speakers for the Government." Those were my words, and I gather that in the Upper House the very learned Lord to whom he refers was the official speaker for the Government. I am sorry if he did not follow my point, but I do not think it is my fault. When he came to make his apology for what the Government is doing, he put before the House the supposition that after all these troops would be such fine fellows that there would not be any courts-martial at all in practice. That was his suggestion, not mine. But if that were the case, the necessity for the Bill would disappear. The Bill assumes that there will be courts-martial, and if those court-martialled are, as I think they would be, persons of an exceptionally high quality, there is all the more reason that they should have all the protection that can be given to them.
Another attempt which the learned Solicitor-General made to put into the mouth of the opposition something which they would not say was to suggest that the mistakes against which we seek to guard would necessarily be deliberate mistakes. He said that, if any officer on a court-martial or in charge of the proceedings was to be guilty of deliberately ignoring the rules, he would incur pains and penalties in his own country. I am not considering any deliberate infraction at all. In a brief but enforced cessation of active service during the War, I had to act for a time as Judge-Advocate, and I found that innumerable mistakes were made, not through deliberation at all, but through inadvertence and the pressure of the preoccupations of the war, which did not allow of everything to be considered as fully as it was desirable that they should be considered. There is no question of deliberate mistakes. There may be any amount of injustice done by inadvertence, and before the House passes this Bill I want them to realise what could be done without any power on the part of anyone to rescue the unfortunate victim.
We have to realise that a certificate, which may be signed by any junior officer, is enough to establish that everything has been done in order, although in fact it may be exactly the reverse. The things which under Clause 3 are deemed to have been done are really
very amazing. The court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted, the sentence shall be deemed to have been within the jurisdiction of the court, and, if the sentence has been executed, it shall be deemed to have been regularly executed. Although these things may be deemed to have been done, they may be the reverse. The court may be quite irregularly constituted, the man may be tried for an offence for which he should not come before the court, the sentence may be an improper one. I am not suggesting that all these defects are in the least likely to come together in one case. I am saying that, even if they did, no one would have any power to interfere with them. The only question the court in this country could ask was whether the person concerned was a member of the visiting forces, which could easily be proved. Not only members of the visiting forces will be affected, but also civilians employed in connection with

those forces provided they are taken on the strength before coming here.

It is no good pretending that there is no danger that these things can happen on British soil and that those who have raised the opposition are merely taking debating points and trying to take advantage of the good nature of the Solicitor-General. We would not have engaged his attention or that of the House so long if this were not a principle on which so great a legal authority as Lord Atkin, who belongs, I believe, to no particular party, took the trouble to write a long letter to the "Times." When judges so highly placed take such a serious view as that, then the members of the House of Commons, who are the guardians of the liberty of the subject, no matter what their party, should forget their party for the time being and join in resisting a Bill which does violence to that liberty.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 30.

Division No. 79]
AYES.
[11.54 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Ellis, Sir ft. Geoffrey
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Albery, Irving James
Eimley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Apsiey, Lord
Erskine. Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Everard, W. Lindsay
Martin, Thomas B.


Attar, Maj. Ha. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mavhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glossop. C. W. H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bateman, A. L.
Gluckstein. Louis Halte
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Golf, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Belt. Sir Alfred L.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Benn. Sir Arthur Shirley
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorka., Skipton)
Graves, Marjorie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. -
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamilton, Sir George (liford)
Nicholson. Godfrev (Morpeth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Captain Edward T.


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harbord, Arthur
Nunn, William


Burghiey, Lord
Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Donovan, Or. William James


Buroin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Herbert. Capt. S. -Abbey Division)
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hornby, Frank
Peat. Charles U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Petherick, M.


Gaznlet. Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romt'd)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jamieson. Douglas
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Clayton. Dr. George C.
Jennings. Roland
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cochrane, Commander Hon A, D.
Kerr, Hamilton. W.
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colman. N. C. D.
K neb worth. Viscount
Ray, Sir William


Colville. Lieut.-Colonel J.
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Conant, R. I. E
Leckie, J. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook. Thomas A.
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Reid. William Allan (Derby)


Cooper. A. Duff
Lennox-Boyd. A. T.
Robinson, John Roland


Copeland. Ida
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Croft. Brigad'er-General Sir H.
Lockwnnd John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rots, Ronald D.


Crooke. J. Smedley
Lovat-Fraser. James Alexander
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Mabane. William
Runqe, Norah Cecil


Cruddas. Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Macindrew. Capt J. O. (Ayr)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Donner, p. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Salt, Edward W.


Drewe, Cedric
MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dugoan. Hubert John
McKie. John Hamilton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Helen B (Lanark, Bothweill


Smith, Braceweil (Dulwich)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Whltseide, Borras Noel H.


Somerveil, Donald Bradley
Templeton, William P.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Soper, Richard
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thompson, Luke
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Titchlield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, Walter James


Stevenson, James
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Stones, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Colonel Sir Lambert Ward


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wells, Sydney Richard



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South]
Edwards, Charles
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro'.W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Bracken, Brendan
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stattord
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Cordon Macdonatd.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
 That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the Borough of Leominster, which was presented on the 1st day of March, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Merton and Morden, which was presented on the 1st day of March, 1933, he approved.

Resolved,
 That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the County Borough of Portsmouth, which was presented on the 2nd day of March, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Harking.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
 That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930. in respect of the urban district of Machynlleth and part of the rural district of Machynlleth, in the County of Mont
gomery, which was presented on the 19th day of December, 1932, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Crediton, Saint Thomas, and Torrington, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and Section 87 of the Stretford and District Electricity Board Act, 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Irlam Electric Lighting Order, 1915, to the Stretford and District Electricity Board, and to make the Urban District Council of Irlam a constituent authority of the Board, which was presented on the 8th day of February, 1933, he approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.